ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS
Studia Iranica Upsaliensia
16
Erik Anonby and Pakzad Yousefian
Adaptive Multilinguals
A Survey of Language on Larak Island
Abstract
Anonby, E. and P. Yousefian, 2011. Adaptive multilinguals: A survey of language on Larak
Island. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 16. 157 pp. Uppsala. ISBN
978-91-554-8125-4.
Laraki, a Southwestern Iranian language variety heavily influenced by Arabic, is spoken on
Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz. This study is a survey of language use by the Larakispeaking community and is based on a field trip conducted in January 2009. In our research,
we provide an overview of the language community, define the language and its varieties, and
examine patterns of language use, attitudes and vitality. Responses from speakers of Laraki
provide a fascinating window into the ethnic identity of the Laraki community, most of whose
ancestors come not from Iran, but from Arabia. While a lexicostatistical comparison of Laraki
with Musandam Kumzari show a high degree of lexical similarity, recorded text tests (RTTs)
reveal that intelligibility of Musandam Kumzari to speakers of Laraki is marginal. Taking
linguistic considerations and speakers’ perceptions into account, we conclude nonetheless that
Laraki and Musandam Kumzari should be considered dialects of a single language, Kumzari.
In our investigation of language use, a striking pattern of adaptive multilingualism emerges in
which speakers of Laraki normatively select one of several languages (Laraki, Farsi, Arabic
and at least one regional variety such as Qeshmi, Hormuzi or Bandari) according to domains
of use and limitations in the proficiency of their audiences. Although use of the mother tongue
is vigorous in domestic and traditional work-related domains, and speakers’ attitudes toward
their language are overwhelmingly positive, the small size of the language community and the
history of social upheaval in the region place the community at risk.
Keywords: Laraki, Kumzari, Larak Island, Iranian languages, Arabic, Strait of Hormuz, endangered languages, sociolinguistic survey, language use, multilingualism, language attitudes,
lexicostatistic analysis, intelligibility testing, language vitality.
Erik Anonby, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario,
K1S 5B6, Canada
Pakzad Yousefian, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Box 98135-655, Zahedan, Iran
© 2011 Erik Anonby and Pakzad Yousefian
ISSN 1100-326X
ISBN 978-91-554-8125-4
Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, a climate neutral company, Västerås 2011.
Distributor: Uppsala University Library, Box 510, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
www.uu.se, acta@ub.uu.se
The publication of this book has been financed by the Swedish Research Council.
In celebration of the Laraki community
Acknowledgments
This project has been made possible by the contributions of a number of
institutions and individuals.
In Iran, logistical arrangements for the study were kindly managed by the
University of Sistan and Baluchestan. We are most grateful to the team of
four MA students from the University who helped with the preparation and
implementation of field research: Marjan Amirabadizadeh, Hassan Ali
Kadkhoda, Raihanneh Nooraeeinia and Bakhtiar Sediqinejad. In addition, we
were especially privileged to be accompanied by Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani,
linguist at Minab University, during our field research; his many comments
and clarifications before, during and after the field trip have greatly improved the quality of the present manuscript. Ali Rashidi and Mohammad
Mousapour also willingly provided valuable technical assistance.
As we prepared for this project, we further benefitted from the collaboration of scholars from the Linguistics, Inscriptions and Texts Research Centre
at the Cultural Heritage Organization in Tehran, in particular Azita Afrashi
and Yadollah Parmoun, whom we were able to meet and interact with in
2008.
In Oman, we also appreciate the assistance of the leaders of the Kumzari
community of Musandam Peninsula, and of several individuals who helped
us compile wordlists and construct intelligibility tests, in particular Mallalah
Sulaiman al-Kumzari, Noufal Mohammad Ahmed al-Kumzari, and Ibrahim
Salah Qara‘i al-Kumzari.
In Sweden, we recognize the assistance of the Swedish Research Council
(Swedish Research Links) in cooperation with the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), which funded the project under
the initiative, ―Language, identity and society: a documentation of minority
languages in Iran, their sociolinguistic milieu and the role of the language
in individual and group identity‖. The partnership between the University of
Sistan and Baluchestan and Uppsala University made this project feasible,
and Carina Jahani of Uppsala University in particular provided the inspiration and direction for this project.
7
Other individuals who contributed to this effort in valuable ways include
Christina van der Wal Anonby, Tamara Jahani, Caitlyn Fox, Sven-Olof
Dahlgren, Daniel Paul, Alexander and Mirjam Kolbitsch, and Maarten
Kossmann.
Finally, on Larak Island, Mr. Najipour kindly arranged accommodation
and provisions on behalf of the local Council. We extend our heartfelt thanks
to the many members of the Laraki community who allowed us to catch a
glimpse of their rich cultural and linguistic heritage. !
گ ی
8
Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................... 7
List of figures ................................................................................................ 12
List of tables.................................................................................................. 13
Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 14
Transcription conventions............................................................................. 15
Note on the use of social and historical sources ........................................... 16
Note on use of the terms ―Persian‖ and ―Farsi‖ ............................................ 17
1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 19
1.1 Sociolinguistics and the Laraki language variety .......................... 19
1.2 How this project came about ......................................................... 20
1.3 Organization of this book .............................................................. 21
2 Project framework ................................................................................... 22
2.1 Research team................................................................................ 22
2.2 Itinerary ......................................................................................... 22
2.3 Research questions ........................................................................ 23
2.4 Methodology ................................................................................. 23
2.4.1 Sociolinguistic questionnaires ............................................... 24
2.4.2 Lexicostatistic analysis .......................................................... 24
2.4.3 Recorded text tests (RTTs) .................................................... 25
3 Kumzari communities and their language ............................................... 28
3.1 Existing and ongoing research....................................................... 28
3.2 Social context ................................................................................ 29
3.2.1 Demographics ........................................................................ 29
3.2.2 Ethnic identification............................................................... 32
3.2.3 Origins of the ethnic group .................................................... 33
3.2.4 Mobility and migration .......................................................... 35
3.2.5 Marriage patterns ................................................................... 36
3.2.6 Traditional political hierarchy ............................................... 36
3.2.7 Education ............................................................................... 36
3.3 The Kumzari language .................................................................. 37
3.3.1 Language name ...................................................................... 37
3.3.2 Relation to other languages.................................................... 37
3.3.3 Language use ......................................................................... 38
3.3.4 Language attitudes ................................................................. 38
3.3.5 Language vitality and viability .............................................. 39
4 The Laraki language community ............................................................. 40
4.1 Existing and ongoing research....................................................... 40
4.2 Geographic situation...................................................................... 41
4.3 Social situation .............................................................................. 42
4.3.1 Demographics ........................................................................ 42
4.3.2 Ethnic identification............................................................... 45
4.3.3 Origins of the ethnic group .................................................... 46
4.3.4 Mobility and migration .......................................................... 47
4.3.5 Marriage patterns ................................................................... 48
4.3.6 Traditional political hierarchy ............................................... 49
4.3.7 Education ............................................................................... 50
4.4 The Laraki language variety .......................................................... 50
4.4.1 Language distribution ............................................................ 50
4.4.2 Language name ...................................................................... 51
4.4.3 Relation to other languages.................................................... 52
4.4.4 Adaptive multilinguals: An overview of language on Larak . 52
4.5 Population samples ........................................................................ 53
4.5.1 Group questionnaire............................................................... 53
4.5.2 Individual questionnaire ........................................................ 53
4.5.3 Lexicostatistic analysis .......................................................... 55
4.5.4 Recorded text tests (RTTs) .................................................... 55
5 Defining Kumzari varieties ...................................................................... 57
5.1 Distribution of Kumzari varieties .................................................. 57
5.2 Perceptions of relatedness ............................................................. 57
5.3 Lexical similarity ........................................................................... 58
5.3.1 Laraki with Persian and Arabic ............................................. 60
5.3.2 Laraki with Musandam Kumzari ........................................... 60
5.4 Intelligibility between dialects ...................................................... 61
5.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 63
6 Language Use .......................................................................................... 64
6.1 Multilingualism ............................................................................. 64
6.1.1 Languages of multilingualism ............................................... 64
6.1.2 Order of languages learned .................................................... 65
6.1.3 Multilingual proficiency ........................................................ 66
6.2 Language use by domain ............................................................... 68
7 Media and language ................................................................................. 71
7.1 Media use ...................................................................................... 71
7.2 Availability of languages in the media .......................................... 73
7.3 Language choices for media .......................................................... 74
7.4 Aspirations for written materials in Laraki.................................... 75
8 Language attitudes ................................................................................... 77
8.1 Inherent and relative value ............................................................ 77
8.2 Optimal languages by activity ....................................................... 79
8.3 Desired proficiency ....................................................................... 80
9 Language vitality and language viability ................................................. 82
9.1 Language vitality ........................................................................... 82
9.2 Perceived language viability.......................................................... 83
9.3 Reflections on language viability and endangerment .................... 84
9.3.1 Internal factors ....................................................................... 84
9.3.2 External factors ...................................................................... 85
10 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 87
Appendix 1: Group sociolinguistic questionnaire ......................................... 88
English template with a translation of group responses ........................... 88
Persian questionnaire.............................................................................. 100
Appendix 2: Individual sociolinguistic questionnaire ................................ 107
English template ..................................................................................... 107
Persian questionnaire.............................................................................. 115
Appendix 3: Wordlists ................................................................................ 122
Appendix 4: RTT materials ........................................................................ 143
Subject background questionnaire.......................................................... 143
Laraki texts ............................................................................................. 144
Musandam Kumzari texts....................................................................... 147
Appendix 5: Segmental inventory of Laraki and Musandam Kumzari ...... 151
Appendix 6: Kumzari-speaking population by settlement .......................... 152
Appendix 7: Images from field research ..................................................... 153
References ................................................................................................... 154
List of figures
Figure 1: The Kumzari language area ........................................................... 30
Figure 2: A satellite view of Larak Island..................................................... 42
Figure 3: The village of Larak-e Shahri ........................................................ 44
Figure 4: A satellite photograph with the ruins of the Portuguese fort ......... 48
Figure 5: The interior of the ruins of the Portuguese fort ............................. 49
Figure 6: Languages learned first, second and third ..................................... 66
Figure 7: Reported proficiency for language skills in Farsi and Arabic ....... 68
Figure 8: Languages respondents most often use, by domain ...................... 70
Figure 9: Percentage of respondents who use given media ―often‖.............. 71
Figure 10: Percentage of respondents who use a medium ―often‖, by sex ... 72
Figure 11: Percentage of respondents who use a medium ―often‖, by age ... 73
Figure 12: Reported frequency for use of media in Farsi and Arabic ........... 75
Figure 13: Perceptions of optimal languages for given activities ................. 80
Figure 14: At Bandar-e Abbas before setting out for Larak Island............. 153
Figure 15: Collecting the Laraki wordlist ................................................... 153
12
List of tables
Table 1: Subject grouping for individual questionnaires .............................. 54
Table 2: Percentages of lexical similarity, 100-item Swadesh wordlist ....... 59
Table 3: Percentages of lexical similarity, 240-item wordlist....................... 60
Table 4: Laraki responses to Laraki control test ........................................... 62
Table 5: Laraki responses to Musandam Kumzari intelligibility test ........... 62
Table 6: Mother-tongue speakers of Kumzari by settlement ...................... 152
13
Abbreviations
A
adj.
adv.
f.
F
L
lit.
m.
mid.
MK
o.
Q
RTT
UAE
y.
14
Arabic
adjective
adverb
female
Farsi
Laraki
literally
male
middle-aged
Musandam Kumzari
older
question
recorded text test
United Arab Emirates
younger
Transcription conventions
č
C (e.g.,
)
ğ
j
q
š
θ
V (e.g., ā ē ī ō ū)
x
y
’
voiceless palato-alveolar affricate
emphatic (velaro-pharyngealized) consonant
voiced dental fricative
voiced velar/uvular fricative
voiceless pharyngeal fricative
voiced palato-alveolar affricate
voiceless uvular stop
voiceless palato-alveolar fricative
voiceless dental fricative
long vowel
voiceless velar/uvular fricative
voiced palatal approximant
voiced pharyngeal fricative
glottal stop
Other symbols used in the phonological transcriptions (given everywhere in
italics) approximate their value in the IPA (International Phonetic Association) alphabet.
A chart of the consonant and vowel inventory of Laraki and Kumzari is
found in Appendix 5.
15
Note on the use of social and historical sources
The social and historical observations collected in this book represent the
opinions of diverse individuals and groups. In the interests of fair and balanced scholarship, we have systematically referred to available literature on
these topics, and clearly identified the sources of these observations. However, we have refrained from advancing conclusions of our own based on
information which has not been or cannot be convincingly substantiated.
16
Note on use of the terms ―Persian‖ and ―Farsi‖
In this study, we use the term ―Persian‖ to refer to the dominant regional
culture and standard written language common to Iran, Afghanistan and
Tajikistan. The term ―Farsi‖ is used when referring specifically to the Persian variety standardized in Iran, and to closely related spoken varieties. The
use of the term ―Farsi‖ by Laraki subjects is further defined in 6.1.1.
17
1 Introduction
Iran is an extremely diverse country from every point of view. A land of four
seasons, variations in temperature can reach 50°C between the temperate
zone in the north and the sub-tropical zone in the south. The geography of
the country is additionally shaped by a range of elevations, from the Caspian
Sea, which is below sea level, to the heights of Mt. Damavand, which reach
5610m.
Culturally, there is also great variety, and ethnic groups representing
many different language families and languages are found. Within the Iranian language family, Persian, Kurdish, Balochi, Luri, Gilaki, Mazandarani
and many other varieties are represented. Turkic varieties such as Azerbaijani and Turkmen, along with Arabic, are also spoken by a large proportion
of the population, and there are pockets of Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Armenian, Georgian and Neo-Aramaic in different parts of the country.
Standard Persian is used as a formal spoken and written language across
the nation. Alongside Persian, however, other languages are used in everyday life and formally, the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
pledges to uphold this freedom.
However, with the penetration of Persian across the nation through various means, most notably media, schooling, and migration, the use of local
language is diminishing in many areas. In this respect, Iran‘s diverse cultural
heritage is under threat, and the task of preserving linguistic and sociolinguistic diversity in the country is urgent. Documentation of these languages
is an essential means of salvaging a priceless element of human knowledge
and experience. The present project, a sociolinguistic survey of language on
Larak Island in Iran, is one small facet of this greater enterprise.
1.1 Sociolinguistics and the Laraki language variety
Laraki is a variety of Kumzari (ISO 693-3 language code [zum]), a small
language spoken in the region of the Strait of Hormuz. Within Iran, the language is confined to a single community on Larak Island. While the language and culture of Kumzari speakers have gained the attention of a few
19
scholars, especially in recent years, the synthesis of these two domains in a
sociolinguistic study has until now been neglected. But the sociolinguistic
situation of speakers of Laraki is unique within Iran. In contrast to many
places in Iran where Persian influence on Arabic has become the norm, we
find on Larak an Iranian variety that has been profoundly influenced by Arabic, much more so than even Persian has been (Anonby 2008a). The sociolinguistic complexity that has led to the emergence of this language community lives on in the adaptive multilingualism of its speakers. It is the inspiration for the present research.
1.2 How this project came about
In the summer of 2008, the authors were relaxing with a glass of tea after a
fine spread of māhi kebāb, rice and fresh herbs, talking about the overwhelming diversity of languages and dialects in Iran. The idea came up that,
since one of the authors had been conducting sociolinguistic studies in Iran,
and the other was working on the Kumzari language in Oman, they should
team up and conduct a study on an area of common interest: the sociolinguistic situation the language spoken on Larak Island in Iran.
After many months of planning, the entire research team met for the first
time in Bandar-e Abbas, southern Iran, on the 26th of January, 2009. While
Dr. Pakzad Yousefian made a demanding 15-hour bus journey from Esfahan,
where he had been spending holidays with his family, the group of four MA
students travelled 11 hours from Zahedan in the south-eastern corner of the
country. Dr. Erik Anonby and Christina van der Wal Anonby, scholars based
at Leiden University in the Netherlands, travelled by air with their children
from their research location among the Kumzari community of the Musandam Peninsula of northern Oman.
After assembling the necessary research materials, we arrived before
noon at one of the piers at Bandar-e Abbas (Figure 14, p. 153). From there,
we hired a motorboat and made for Larak Island, 50 minutes to the south,
out in the Strait of Hormuz. Out on the glistening waters of the ocean, we
travelled between Qeshm Island to the west and Hormuz Island to the east,
whose blue outline was just visible through the humid air.
Finally, the mountains of Larak appeared, and we soon arrived at the jetty
just outside the village. The seaside was calm, and clean. The island was
almost bare of vegetation, and in place of the dogs and cats typical of villages elsewhere in Iran, there were goats.
We were warmly welcomed by Mr. Najipour, head of the island‘s Council, and he provided lodging for the research team in a newly constructed
guest house. In our preparations, Dr. Yousefian had been told that there were
20
grocery stores on the Island. But, after a walk around town to get our bearings, we discovered that this was not the case. We felt like Robinson Crusoe
on Larak! From then on, we followed the example of the local population,
who bring almost all of their supplies—bread, fruit, vegetables—from
Qeshm.
Starting fieldwork on the evening of our arrival, an older Laraki
speaker—who did not know Standard Persian—recounted a story, and
younger speakers interpreted for us. For the next few days, we pursued an
eventful programme of recordings and interviews. In response to our respect
for the conservative culture of the population, they treated us kindly. The
ladies of our research team were welcomed into the houses by the ladies of
the community, and the men of the research team spent time by the shore,
where a continuously revolving group of men gathered from dawn to dusk
(Figure 15, p. 153).
1.3 Organization of this book
This study is a sociolinguistic survey of language on Larak Island, Iran. It is
a product of the interaction between a research team and a language community.
In Chapter 2, we outline the framework of the project, introducing the research team, itinerary, research questions and methodology. While Chapter 3
provides general background to Kumzari-speaking communities and their
language, Chapter 4 narrows the focus to the language community of Larak
Island.
In Chapter 5, we define relationship between Musandam Kumzari and
Laraki by examining their distribution, perceptions of relatedness, lexical
similarity, and intelligibility between dialects. Chapter 6 deals with language
use among Laraki speakers, examining multilingualism in general and tying
it into a review of language use by domain, and in Chapter 7 this discussion
is expanded to the relationship between language use and media. Chapter 8,
which frames this discussion with an examination of language attitudes,
leads into reflections on language vitality, viability and endangerment in
Chapter 9, and the conclusion in Chapter 10.
The appendices (pp. 88-153) contain a selection of materials integral to
the study: group and individual sociolinguistic questionnaires; wordlists; the
questionnaire and texts used in recorded text intelligibility testing; a summary of Musandam Kumzari and Laraki-speaking population by settlement;
and images from field research.
21
2 Project framework
This project was conducted within the context of a partnership between the
University of Sistan and Baluchestan (USB) in Iran and Uppsala University
(UU) in Sweden.
In this chapter, we introduce the research team (2.1) and provide a record
of the project‘s itinerary (2.2). We then outline major research themes and
list constituent research questions (2.3). Finally, we review the methodology
with which we have addressed these questions, giving special attention to the
design and implementation of assessment techniques (2.4).
2.1 Research team
The research team was comprised of Erik Anonby and Christina van der
Wal-Anonby, who have been working on the Kumzari variety spoken on
Musandam Peninsula in Oman, and Pakzad Yousefian of USB, who has
been active in sociolinguistic research on Iranian languages. Four MA students from USB took part in field research: Marjan Amirabadizadeh, Hassan
Ali Kadkhoda, Raihanneh Nooraeeinia and Bakhtiar Sediqinejad. Hassan
Mohebbi Bahmani, a lecturer in linguistics at Minab University who is currently working on Laraki, joined the research team for fieldwork.
2.2 Itinerary
Initial planning for the project began in Zahedan, Iran, in June 2008. Once
we finalized a proposal for the project in October, we prepared our assessment tools and made logistical preparations for fieldwork. In late October,
we met with Iranian scholars working on Laraki at the International Conference on Languages and Dialects in Iran at USB in Zahedan (4.1). In January
2009, we recorded a text in the Musandam variety of Kumzari and constructed a comprehension test for speakers of the Laraki variety of the language (2.4.3). Finally, we met up as a research team in Bandar-e Abbas and
travelled to Larak Island (see Figure 14 in Appendix 7), where we conducted
field research from January 26 to 31.
22
2.3 Research questions
The goal of this study is to provide a sociolinguistic survey of Kumzari, with
special reference to the language community on Larak Island in the Hormozgan Province of Iran. To this end, we have explored three general
themes: an overview of the language community; defining Kumzari and its
varieties; and language use, attitudes and vitality. Research questions we
have investigated in relation to each of the themes are as follows:
Overview of the language community
Where is the language spoken, and how many speakers are there?
What are features of ethnic identity?
Where did the language community originate?
What are some cultural characteristics relevant for understanding patterns of language use, attitudes and vitality?
Defining Kumzari and its varieties
How is Kumzari related to other languages?
What are the main varieties of the language?
How do speakers conceptualize the relationship between varieties?
What is the level of lexical similarity between varieties?
What level of intercomprehension exists between varieties?
How can we best define the relationship between varieties?
Language use, attitudes and vitality
What are languages of multilingualism, and how proficient are subjects in each of these languages?
In what domains are Laraki and other languages used?
What are features of availability and choice of language in the media?
What are attitudes toward use of Laraki and other languages?
What factors threaten ongoing vitality of the language?
2.4 Methodology
In our attempt to gain a holistic overview of the language community, we
have applied a multi-faceted methodology which brings together a review of
the literature and speakers‘ stated knowledge and opinions, elicited language
data, and experimental perceptual data. To this end, we have selected and
implemented the following assessment techniques: sociolinguistic questionnaires for groups and individuals (2.4.1), lexicostatistic analysis (2.4.2), and
recorded text comprehension testing (2.4.3).
23
Throughout the field research process, we relied on Farsi as the primary
language of interview and elicitation. However, because of variation in Farsi
proficiency among subjects, we were in many cases obliged to translate
questions into Bandari (the regional lingua franca; see 6.1.1) or Kumzari for
the purpose of clarification.
Respecting the social dynamics of the language community, interviews
with men were as a rule conducted by the male members of the research
team, and interviews with women were conducted by female members. For
the group questionnaire, for which we had requested a mixture of men and
women but for which only men showed up, the whole research team was
present. Similar constraints affected wordlist collection and intelligibility
testing. The subject sample is detailed for each assessment technique (4.5)
following a description of the Laraki-speaking community as a whole (4.14.4).
2.4.1 Sociolinguistic questionnaires
We designed and used two sociolinguistic questionnaires, one for groups and
one for individuals; these are based on the questionnaires in Anonby &
Johnson (2001) and Kolbitsch & Kolbitsch (in preparation).
The group questionnaire, which we conducted with a single group (4.5.1),
deals with large-scale issues such as community demographics, ethnolinguistic identity and origins, formal education and other social features of the
community as well as perceptions of relationship between languages, general
language use patterns, availability of media, and language vitality. The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 1 along with a comprehensive transcription of the group‘s responses.
In the individual questionnaire (Appendix 2), which we conducted with a
stratified sample of 36 respondents (4.5.2), we focus on issues for which
variation is likely among segments of the community, in particular language
use, including multilingualism and media use, and language attitudes. Responses to the individual questionnaire are detailed in each of the sections
where we discuss these topics.
2.4.2 Lexicostatistic analysis
The purpose of lexicostatistic analysis (i.e., wordlist comparison) is to provide, in a very general way, insight into genetic relationship and contact
between varieties under investigation. Because there is a correlation between
lexical similarity and intelligibility, it furnishes an initial indication as to
whether two varieties might be intelligible with each other. In this way, it
also addresses a basic question of language assessment, namely, whether two
24
language varieties should be treated as separate languages or as dialects of a
single language.
When the percentage of apparent cognates between two speech forms is
less than 70%, one could consider the speech forms as separate languages.
However, if the lexical similarity between speech forms is 70% or greater,
dialect intelligibility testing is called for in order to determine the level of
comprehension between the speech forms (Bergman 1989:8.1.5, Anonby &
Johnson 2001:6).
We used a 240-item list of basic vocabulary based on Anonby (2003) but
augmented to include the Swadesh 100 wordlist. While the larger wordlist is
valuable in providing comparative data (Grimes 1995:2.6), the core of 100
words has been analyzed separately to ensure consistency with other measures of lexical similarity that use the Swadesh list, since it is a standard in
the discipline.
The wordlists, which are reproduced in Appendix 3, include:
an English template;
a Persian translation of this template, which we used in elicitation;
a Musandam Kumzari wordlist which we elicited in Khasab and
Kumzar prior to field research on Larak;
a Laraki wordlist, simultaneously transcribed and recorded during
field research and verified with Laraki speakers at a later time; and
an Arabic wordlist, used as a point of comparison because of the language‘s major influence on the varieties under investigation.
The subject sample which contributed the Laraki wordlist is reviewed in
4.5.3. Figure 15 in Appendix 7 shows the team collecting the wordlist.
In section 5.3, percentages of apparent lexical similarity between varieties
are provided for Laraki, Musandam Kumzari, Persian and Arabic. These
have been calculated using Wordsurv, a lexicostatistic comparison program
(Wimbish 1989, White et al. 2006). Note that because apparent similarity is
being measured, historically unrelated words which are phonetically similar
are grouped together; conversely, historically related words which are not
synchronically similar are treated as dissimilar.
2.4.3 Recorded text tests (RTTs)
Lexicostatistical findings within certain ranges (especially between about 70
and 95%) are inadequate for providing an initial indication, on linguistic
grounds, as to whether two varieties should be considered dialects of a single
language or separate languages (Bergman 1989:8.1.5, Anonby and Johnson
2001:6; see also 2.4.2 above). In such cases, measuring levels of intelligibil25
ity between varieties provides a functional footing for making such an assessment (Grimes 1995:3.2, Dixon 1999:8). To this end, using the method
described in Casad (1974), we designed and administered recorded text tests
(RTTs) to measure dialect intelligibility. In particular, we investigated the
degree to which Musandam Kumzari is intelligible to speakers of Laraki.
Although it only took about twenty minutes to administer a complete
RTT with each subject, a lot of work went into constructing the tests, for
which the texts are reproduced in Appendix 4. We began preparing the first
part by recording two Musandam Kumzari (hereafter ―MK‖6 texts from a
speaker in the Musandam community: one short ―MK practice‖ text, and a
longer ―MK main‖ text (about three minutes6. We transcribed and translated
both of the texts, and developed questions from a variety of semantic domains: three questions for the short text and fifteen for the longer text. We
then recorded the questions in MK with another speaker and inserted them
just after the portion of the text containing the appropriate response. To ensure that the test was valid and well designed, we administered it to five MK
speakers. The first part of the test consisted of the ―MK practice‖ text followed by the same text repeated with questions inserted: this step allowed
subjects to familiarize themselves with the headphones, electronic equipment
and testing procedure. Here, and for all the tests, we wrote down responses
and scored them as ―right‖, ―wrong‖ or ―half-right‖. After this, we conducted a test consisting of the ―MK main‖ text followed by the same text
repeated with questions inserted. We then removed five of the fifteen questions which MK speakers did not consistently answer correctly or for which
a semantic domain was the same as in another question. The ―MK main‖ test
was later used for the ―second-language‖ portion of the RTT with Laraki
speakers.
In Larak, we followed a parallel procedure: we began by recording two
Laraki texts, one short ―Laraki practice‖ text, and a longer ―Laraki main‖
text (about three minutes). Similarly, we transcribed and translated both of
the texts, and developed questions from a variety of semantic domains: three
questions for the short text and fifteen for the longer text. We then recorded
the questions in Laraki with another speaker and inserted them just after the
portion of the text containing the appropriate response. To ensure that the
test was valid and well designed, we administered both parts to five Laraki
speakers. We then removed five of the fifteen questions which Laraki speakers did not consistently answer correctly or for which a semantic domain was
the same as in another question. Together, the two Laraki tests comprised the
―hometown‖ portion of the RTT with Laraki speakers.
26
Next, to prepare the ―MK main‖ text for use by Laraki speakers, we
translated the ―MK main‖ questions into Laraki and inserted them into the
text.
Finally, we administered the complete RTT to Laraki subjects (for a description of the subject sample, see 4.5.4). As part of the test, we filled out a
subject background questionnaire. This helped us to ensure that subjects had
limited exposure to the MK community, since this would undermine the
validity of the RTT in demonstrating inherent intelligibility of MK by speakers of Laraki (Grimes 1995:3.7). With the recordings, we first administered
the full ―hometown‖ test, consisting of the ―Laraki practice‖ test and the
―Laraki main‖ test, which acted as a control for the next step: if subjects
performed well (seven or more correct answers for ten questions) on the
―Laraki main‖ test, we administered the ―MK main‖ test as in Musandam
except that questions were played back in Laraki. In an open-ended evaluation after testing, we wrote down subjects‘ opinions on how difficult it had
been for them to understand the MK text.
Test results are summarized and interpreted in 5.4.
27
3 Kumzari communities and their language
The Kumzari language (ISO 693-3 language code [zum]) is spoken by two
main groups: the Kumzari of Musandam Peninsula and inhabitants of Larak
Island. Since the Laraki community is detailed in Chapter 4 below, we will
limit the focus here to the larger language community, and to Musandam
Kumzari. Unless it is otherwise referenced, the content of this chapter is
drawn from Musandam field notes (Anonby van der Wal and Anonby; see
3.1).
In this chapter, we first outline existing literature and ongoing research on
Kumzari (3.1). A broad overview of the language‘s social context (3.2) leads
to a discussion of key aspects of the language (3.3). The relationship between Musandam Kumzari and Laraki, which is relevant to the present discussion, is explored separately in Chapter 5. There, we conclude that it is
appropriate to consider the two varieties as dialects of a single language,
Kumzari; this assertion, which we did not take for granted during the research process, has nonetheless informed the presentation of this chapter and
the study as a whole.
3.1 Existing and ongoing research
The first references to the Kumzari language are found in two articles, both
published shortly after 1900, by Zwemer and Jayakar. Zwemer, a traveller
and missionary, observes that in Khasab, on Musandam Peninsula, a language was spoken which was ―neither Persian, Arabic, nor Baluchi, but resembles the Himyaritic [= South Arabian] dialect of the Mahras‖ (1902:57);
however, he neglects to mention the name of the language.
Jayakar, an Indian surgeon who visited the Musandam Peninsula with a
British political expedition, gives a fuller picture of the Kumzari language in
a study which primarily concerns the Arabic dialect of the Shihuh (1902; see
also 3.2.2). Along with general historical and cultural background, he discusses a few points of Kumzari pronunciation and grammar, provides a lexicon of 158 items, and offers some general comparative comments on the
language (pp. 272-7).
28
Lorimer (1908:2/1086) states that the Kumzari language was also spoken
on Larak Island, but says nothing about the language itself.
Thomas (1930) provides additional information on the language with a
fifteen-page grammar sketch and a lexicon of 553 words. Thomas (1929)
gives further cultural background to the Musandam Kumzari ethnic group,
but provides little information about the language.
Skjærvø (1989, 2010) provides comparative commentary on the language, and Lewis (2011) summarizes basic demographic and comparative
information.
Bayshak (2002) has written an article on the comparative status of
Kumzari, and highlights connections between Kumzari and Arabic.
Anonby van der Wal and Anonby, who were members of the research
team for the present study, are working on a broad description of the language with attention to grammar, language history, and language contact
(Anonby van der Wal 2008, 2009, in preparation; Anonby 2008a, 2008b,
2011, in preparation). Ali Hassan Ali Al-Kumzari has been a strong partner
in this initiative, especially for the dictionary (Anonby, Anonby van der Wal
and al-Kumzari in preparation) and the development of a Kumzari alphabet
(Anonby 2009b). Anonby is also collaborating with Mohebbi Bahmani on
Laraki.
Research specifically pertaining to the Laraki dialect of Kumzari is reviewed in section 4.1 below.
Significant studies which treat the history and culture of the Kumzari in
the larger context of Musandam Peninsula are Thomas (19296, Dostal
(19726, immermann (19816, and an al (1987).
3.2 Social context
A demographic overview is first provided for Kumzari-speaking communities (3.2.1). The study then briefly considers a number of features of Musandam Kumzari society, beginning with ethnic identification (3.2.2) and the
origins of the community (3.2.3). In addition, patterns of mobility and migration (3.2.4) as well as marriage (3.2.5) are reviewed alongside a synopsis of
the traditional political hierarchy (3.2.6) and the availability and penetration
of formal education among members of the community (3.2.7).
3.2.1 Demographics
Kumzari is spoken on both sides of the Strait of Hormuz. There are two main
groups of speakers, one on each side of the Strait: the Kumzari of Musandam
Peninsula in north-eastern Arabia, and the Laraki of Larak Island in Iran.
29
Figure 1 shows the region in which the language is situated, including communities in which it is spoken and nearby urban areas.
Figure 1: The Kumzari language area
While the Ethnologue gives a total figure of only 1700 Kumzari speakers
(Lewis 2011), we estimate that the number of speakers is actually about
4000 individuals, plus about two hundred latent speakers of Kumzari as a
second language.1 This higher tally is substantiated in the present section,
and component population figures are assembled and referenced in Appendix 6.
1
The discrepancy between our own figures and those of Ethnologue likely stems from the fact
that the Ethnologue figure, which is based on the 1993 census of Oman, is limited to speakers
in Oman (and perhaps even to Kumzar village). Since the Kumzari-speaking populations in
the United Arab Emirates and Larak Island are not mentioned there, it is probable that they
have not been taken into account.
30
Musandam Kumzari, the larger of the two groups, is located on the
Musandam Peninsula of north-eastern Arabia, divided between Oman and
the United Arab Emirates (UAE). There, the Kumzari population is concentrated in Oman,2 in the village of Kumzar and in a quarter of Khasab known
as the Harat al-Kumzari (Arabic for ‗Kumzari quarter‘; Kumzari: hārtō).
There is a seasonal migration between the two centres in which almost the
entire populace of Kumzar moves to Khasab for a period of two to six
months in the summer. Taking this into account, the population of Kumzar
ranges from approximately 1500 (winter) to as low as one or two dozen
(summer); conversely, the Kumzari population in Khasab varies from about
1500 (winter) to 3000 (summer).
A smaller collection of Musandam Kumzari speakers, estimated at between 100 and 150 individuals, is found in the town of Daba, Oman, at the
southern end of the peninsula. There are also some Kumzari speakers in the
fishing village of Qabbe, located between Kumzar and Khasab. In most
cases, Kumzari speakers in Qabbe are females who have married into Arabic-speaking families.
In the UAE, there are several groups of Musandam Kumzari speakers
who recently emigrated from Kumzar and Khasab (3.2.1), and who maintain
close ties with their communities of origin; these families, totalling about
225 individuals, are found mainly in the emirates of Ra‘s al-Khaimah,
Ajman and Abu Dhabi.
In total, we estimate that there are between 3300 and 3400 Musandam
Kumzari speakers: about 3125 on the Musandam Peninsula of Oman, and
about 225 in the UAE.
To the other side of the Gulf on Larak Island, the population of mothertongue speakers of the Laraki dialect of Kumzari numbers around 700, and a
handful of speakers live elsewhere in the region. In addition, there are second-language speakers of Laraki among the Arabic-speaking population on
the island as well as many (perhaps 200) latent second-language speakers
among members of the Arabic-speaking Laraki community which has emigrated to the UAE (4.3.1).
Musandam Kumzari and Laraki communities are uniformly Sunni Muslim, along with the majority of the populace in the Strait of Hormuz region.
This sets them apart from the dominant sects in their national contexts: Ibadi
in Oman, and Shi‘ite in Iran.
2
Musandam Kumzari population figures are informed by the 1993 and 2003 censuses of
Oman (see Appendix 5), but have been adjusted based on group interviews and our own
observations.
31
3.2.2 Ethnic identification
Ethnically, Musandam Kumzari identify themselves first and foremost with
their Kumzari language community. However, at a higher level, they also
consider themselves as a sub-group of the Shihuh (adj.: Shihhi), the dominant Arab population of Musandam Peninsula (A.M.A. al-Kumzari 2006).
Historically, there has been extensive contact between the Musandam
Kumzari and Arabic-speaking Shihuh groups. First of all, there have been
ongoing political connections between the Kumzari and other Shihuh
groups, and along with many Shihuh clans, they belong to the Shatair
(Kumzari: štērī) confederation. In fact, the Kumzari have been politically
dominant among the Shatair in recent centuries (Lorimer 1908:2/1040; see
also 3.2.6). Regarding this situation, Thomas in 1929 said:
They are regarded throughout Oman as Shihuh, and they claim
themselves to be Shihuh, a claim which is not questioned by
their fellow-Shihuh tribesmen, over half of whom, indeed, in the
south, they have established a complete ascendancy; for one of
their Shaikhs habitually resides at Dibah, is the de facto Shaikh
of the Bani Shatair confederation, and claims to be the paramount Shaikh of the entire Shihuh tribe. (1929:75)
The Kumzari forts still standing in Khasab and Diba are an ongoing monument to this historical state of affairs.
Another indication of this relationship is the seasonal migrations in which
both groups participated (Dostal 1972, Najmabadi 1988). In addition, because of droughts in the past sixty years and probably before this time, many
Arabic-speaking bedouin (Arabic: bādī, Kumzari: kō’ī) Shihuh families have
steadily left their mountain habitations and moved down permanently, settling in Kumzar village. Remarkably, these bedouins have adopted Kumzari
as their mother tongue.
These connections have had a major impact on the culture of Musandam
Kumzari speakers. Today, interaction with the majority Arab population is
common, and the regional culture is part of the daily rhythm of the Kumzari.
For example, most formal Kumzari oral literature (especially poetry and
songs) is performed in Shihhi Arabic.
Historically, the Musandam Kumzari have seen themselves as falling under the sphere of influence of the Gulf rather than Oman. When using the
term ―Oman‖, they were referring to the central coast of Oman, where the
nation‘s capital Muscat is located. However, the current Oman government
has promoted the idea of political and cultural unity through employment
and directing of civil servants, through school and through media. This may
32
be further strengthening Kumzari perceptions of themselves as Arab and as
citizens of the nation in which they find themselves.
Members of the Laraki-speaking community identify themselves first and
foremost as Laraki, and at a higher level, as Arab. This situation, which is
similar to that of Musandam Kumzari, is explored in 4.3.2.
3.2.3 Origins of the ethnic group
On the shores of the Strait of Hormuz, at the crossroads of civilizations
and site of an ongoing historical succession of peoples and empires, members of the Kumzari community are confounded by their identity as an Arab
ethnic group (3.2.2) which speaks a distinct language (3.3.1). This enigma
has fascinated each of the authors who have studied the connection between
the Kumzari and the larger Shihuh population.
Musandam Kumzari favour the idea that, as is the case for other members
of the greater Shihuh Arab group, their ancestors originated in Yemen (see
also Jayakar 1902 and Dostal 1974 on the Shihuh‘s view of their origins in
Yemen). Bayshak (2002) implicitly affirms this hypothesis by highlighting
Arabic structures in the language and linking them with the Modern South
Arabian languages of southern Oman and Yemen.
This contrasts with other assessments in the literature, which struggle to
account for the affiliation of the language by assuming Iranian origins for the
Kumzari ethnic group. Specifically, some scholars have suggested that the
Kumzari are at least partially Persian in origin. However, there is no record
of any initial migration from Iran to Musandam Peninsula.
Najmabadi (1988:67-8), based on Zimmermann (1981), assumes a migration of considerable antiquity, but states that it is impossible to know
whether it predated or followed the arrival of the Shihuh in the 7th century.
These authors‘ hypotheses on the eventual integration of the Kumzari with
other inhabitants of Musandam, which continues to be a socially sensitive
issue, will not be repeated here.
Jayakar seems to paint a picture of a more recent migration:
There is ample evidence in the general features and vocabulary
of the dialect, to show that the Kamázareh or at least the main
portion of the tribe must have originally come over from the opposite or Persian coast, and this conclusion can be upheld notwithstanding the fact that there exists among them a sub-tribe
that claims to have immigrated from al-Bahrein, which is quite
possible on the assumption that the latter immigrated at a later
date and were numerically so weak, as to become in time thoroughly incorporated with the previous immigrants and to lose
all traces of their language. The Kamázareh are divided into
three sub-tribes,—Beni ‘Alee eid, the origin of which is very
33
difficult to trace, Beni ‘Alee Hasan who claim to have descended from ‘Abdullah bin Awd al Mannáee and to have immigrated from Manán‘aeh in al-Bahrein, and [the third subtribe,] who admit having originally come from a place called
Biyábool near Mináw on the Persian coast. The last one is considered to be the Baloochee branch of the tribe, and appears to
be the one which has contributed mainly in forming the dialect.
(1902:272)
In the group interview in Larak (Appendix 1), respondents also referred to
the latter element among the Kumzari. And Dostal (1974:2) independently
echoes this claim: he states the Kumzari ―are supposed to be of Balochi origin‖. However, he admits that ―at present it is impossible to make any statement about when they entered this region‖.
In keeping with anthropological conventions of the period in which he
was writing, Thomas adds a comment on physical appearance to the discussion:
The Kumazara are physically peculiar in their lack of Semitic
features characteristic in some degree of their fellow-tribesmen.
… They are, in my opinion, of Persian or some kindred South
Asiatic origin. (1929:75)
This comment is met with disapproval on the part of Musandam Kumzari,
and contradicts the passing impression given in Zwemer (1902:57-8) that
―[t]heir complexion...is like that of the average Arab‖. To be fair, the physical characteristics of the Kumzari are extremely varied, and individual appearance ranges from pale to very dark. In this way, they represent the Gulf
as a wider region, where the movement and mixing of peoples has been taking place for thousands of years.
Whatever the origins of the linguistic community from which the
Kumzari language is inherited may be, we favour the idea that the presence
of the language in Arabia is not the result of a recent migration. In fact,
based on comparative linguistic evidence, we argue elsewhere that the presence of the Kumzari language in Arabia predates the Muslim conquest of the
region in the 7th Century A.D. The main arguments in support of this assertion are that Kumzari has not taken part in key phonological innovations of
Iranian languages in the New Iranian period (which begins with the Arab
takeover of Sassanid Persia in the 640s A.D.), and that the Arabic component of the Kumzari lexicon appears to have been lexified directly from Arabic rather than via New Persian; therefore, we have deduced that the original
linguistic ancestors of today‘s Kumzari population have inhabited the
Musandam Peninsula for at least thirteen centuries (Anonby in preparation
a).
34
Since the founding of the Kumzari-speaking population in Musandam, it
is also likely that other groups have been incorporated into this community:
Arabs from Bahrain and Baloch from the Makran Coast of Iran, as suggested
by Jayakar; families descended from the ruling class of the Arab kingdom of
Hormuz, as currently recounted by members of the Kumzari community; and
inhabitants as well as Shihuh groups on the Musandam Peninsula, as discussed in 3.2.2 above. However, there is little evidence that the basic structure of the language has been influenced by the assimilation of these groups.
Specific developments relevant to the Kumzari-speaking community of
Larak Island, whose origin can be traced back to Musandam Kumzari as well
as other communities of the Arabian Peninsula and immigrants from the
Iranian mainland, are discussed separately in 4.3.3.
3.2.4 Mobility and migration
There is constant movement between Kumzar and Khasab, the two largest
settlements of Kumzari speakers. Still, Kumzar is reachable only by boat;
from Khasab, it is a 40-minute ride by motorboat, and 2 hours by larger fishing and cargo vessel (Kumzari: lanj).
Especially for major event such as weddings, there is also regular contact
between Kumzar and Khasab, and the various other settlements in Oman and
the UAE (United Arab Emirates) where Kumzari speakers are found (3.2.1):
Daba, Ra‘s al-Khaimah, Ajman and Abu Dhabi. In addition, many Kumzari
inhabitants visit the UAE on a weekly basis for shopping, since an array of
cheap commodities, many of which are not found in Khasab, is available
there. Since Oman and the UAE both belong to the Cooperation Council for
the Arab States of the Gulf, citizens do not require a visa to travel between
the two countries.
The residence of Kumzari in the UAE dates back to the 1960s, when
some of them travelled abroad for work: since it was the main British outpost in the region, they obtained passports from Abu Dhabi. And because of
the close historical ties between the UAE and Musandam, the UAE has offered Emirati nationality to other Kumzari. A number of families have taken
advantage of this and have relocated to the Emirates.
Contact is surprisingly limited between Musandam Kumzari speakers and
those from Larak; when it does happen, it most often takes place with Laraki
living in or visiting Khasab, since travel to Larak by Musandam Kumzari is
uncommon.
There are a few Kumzari students studying in other parts of Oman. Most
of these return to Khasab and Kumzar for holidays and school breaks.
Mobility and migration patterns of Laraki speakers are discussed in 4.3.4.
35
3.2.5 Marriage patterns
While endogamy within the Musandam Kumzari speakers is usual, there are
numerous cases of marriage between Kumzari and other inhabitants of
Musandam Peninsula.
Endogamy is also the norm among Laraki speakers, but there are many
cases where people from Larak have married people from other places
(4.3.5).
3.2.6 Traditional political hierarchy
Until the late 1900s, the Musandam Kumzari and the rest of the Shateir division of the Shihuh were ruled by Kumzari sheikhs (Lorimer 1908:2/
1040, A.M.A. al-Kumzari 2006). At one point in the 1800s the sheikhs‘ influence extended over a large stretch of coastline around Musandam Peninsula, stretching from Sharjah around to Daba, and across the Strait of Hormuz to Larak (Anonby van der Wal and Anonby, Musandam field notes;
Lorimer 1908:1/622ff. and 2/1086). For the last two decades, however, there
has been no sheikh presiding over the community. Instead, headmen
(Kumzari: rēšidan) have acted as regents for the sheikhdom. Recently,
though, Zaid Muhammad Ali Mahdi al-Kumzari, a descendent of the former
sheikh, has been promoted by a headman as a successor to the title; and
Oman‘s central government has recognized this claim.
The headmen are responsible for the three clans (Kumzari: jēluman)
among the Musandam Kumzari: Aql, Ğušban, and Bō‘in. These clans have
political and social significance, and there are minor sociolectal differences
in pronunciation and lexicon between the groups.
3.2.7 Education
There is no formal education available in Kumzari in any of the countries
where it is spoken, although there is a grassroots effort among Musandam
Kumzari to read and write the language.
Among the older generations of the Musandam community, few have attended school. Now, however, most or all children attend school in Arabic.
From the age of seven, children in Kumzar attend the first levels of school in
the village. Students at higher levels leave to go to high school in Khasab,
where they stay with relatives. In many cases, entire families settle in
Khasab while their children attend school there; and often, the family does
not move back to Kumzar when schooling is finished.
Non-Kumzari teachers tell Kumzari parents that they must speak to their
children in Arabic, not Kumzari, at home, ostensibly to help the children
perform better in school. Some Kumzari are applying this advice. Report36
edly, there is an MA thesis done at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) in Muscat on why Kumzari children do poorly in school. However, we have visited
SQU and have not been able to obtain such a document.
Schooling for children in the Laraki community in Iran, which is conducted in Farsi, is discussed in 4.3.7.
3.3 The Kumzari language
In this overview of the Kumzari language, we discuss the language‘s name
(3.3.1) and its relation to other languages (3.3.2). In addition, we look at
language use (3.3.3), attitudes (3.3.4) and vitality (3.3.5) in the Musandam
Kumzari community. The purpose of this outline is to look at the Kumzari
language as a whole and to provide a point of comparison with the Laraki
variety, which is treated more fully in 4.4.
3.3.1 Language name
Speakers of the Musandam Peninsula variety call their language kum ārī
(adv. kum arītī ‗[speaking] in Kumzari‘6; this name is derived from the historically important and culturally central village of Kumzar (3.2.1). Speakers
of the Larak Island variety call their language variety rārikī (4.4.2).
The language is most commonly spelled ―Kumzari‖ in academic and
popular publications in European languages. Variants of this spelling are:
―Kumz¸ri‖ (Thomas 19306, ―Kumz¸rī‖ (Skjærvø 19896, ―Komz¸ri‖ (Najmabadi 19886, ―Komzari‖ (seen on a number of websites6 and ―Kamzáree‖
(Jayakar 1902). In Persian, the language is referred to as ( ک ْ یkomzārī)
and in Arabic, it is called ( ک ْ يkumzārī).
3.3.2 Relation to other languages
There is a widespread view among the inhabitants of Musandam Peninsula
that Kumzari is a mixture of several languages: Arabic, Farsi, English, Portuguese, Hindi and Balochi are most often mentioned. While Musandam
Kumzari speakers accept this characterization, they prefer to emphasize the
Arabic features of the language.
In the earliest written reference to the Kumzari language, Jayakar
(1902:272-3) contends that the language is for the most part non-Semitic in
nature, and notes that the majority of its vocabulary is Persian in origin. In
notes appended to a grammar sketch, Thomas similarly concludes that
Kumzari is ―a quite characteristic Iranian dialect‖ (1930:843). Skjærvø
(1989:3646, working primarily with Thomas‘ data, classifies Kumzari as a
member of the Southwestern group of Iranian languages.
37
The Ethnologue (Lewis 2011) states further that Kumzari belongs to the
Luri subgroup of Southwestern Iranian languages, although the source and
evidence behind this more specific proposition are unclear; this idea is reexamined and ultimately rejected in Anonby (in preparation a).
While the labelling of Kumzari as an Iranian language is reasonable and
has been treated systematically, although not in depth, it glosses over the
degree to which long-standing contact with Arabic has transformed the basic
structures of the language (see also Zwemer 1902, Bayshak 2002, and
Anonby in preparation b). A breakdown of lexical similarity between
Kumzari, Persian and Arabic is provided in 5.3 below.
A discussion of the relationship of Laraki with other languages is provided in 4.4.3, and the relationship between Musandam Kumzari and Laraki
is analyzed in Chapter 5.
3.3.3 Language use
While most members of the Laraki community are proficient in several languages (6.1), bilingualism is the norm for speakers of Musandam Kumzari.
Most Musandam Kumzari speak and understand Arabic, at least to some
degree. Proficiency levels are highest for younger speakers, males, and those
who live outside of Kumzar. Conversely, there is a significant proportion of
the population in Kumzar, especially older women, who have minimal proficiency in Arabic.
Kumzari is vigorously used in domestic and traditional work-related domains, but in Musandam, Arabic dominates all interactions with outsiders
and domains such as school, prayers, counting money, formal oral literature
and all types of media.
A growing number of young people are cultivating proficiency in English.
Language use among speakers of Laraki is treated in Chapters 6 and 7.
3.3.4 Language attitudes
Speakers of Musandam Kumzari have mixed attitudes toward their language:
many people are proud of it, but others question its usefulness in the wider
Arabic-speaking context.
Arabic is held in high regard by Musandam Kumzari for a number of reasons: it is the dominant language of the countries in which they are located;
it is the primary language of the Shihuh Arab group with which they identify
ethnically; it is the language of the media; it is the language of the Qur‘an;
and it is the language of formal Kumzari oral literature.
38
English is also held in high regard because of its usefulness as an international language.
Language attitudes among speakers of Laraki are treated in Chapter 8.
3.3.5 Language vitality and viability
Although Musandam Kumzari is vigorously used in domestic and traditional
work-related domains, there are a number of factors that threaten the language‘s viability. As the political influence of the Kumzari wanes in Musandam (3.2.6), so does the influence of the Kumzari language. For the average
Kumzari speaker, life increasingly revolves around Arabic-dominated domains—religion, school, media, government work, and shopping (3.3.3).
Even in domains where Kumzari is traditionally used, there is an increasing
penetration of Arabic vocabulary. Perhaps most disconcerting, however, is
the internalization of outsiders‘ negative attitudes toward the Kumzari language to the point where some Kumzari families have begun to speak Arabic
to their children at home.
Language vitality among speakers of Laraki and the viability of their language is treated in Chapter 9.
39
4 The Laraki language community
There are two main groups of Kumzari speakers: those on Musandam Peninsula, and those on Larak Island (3.2.1, 4.3.1). This study focuses on the
Larak Island community and their language, Laraki. There are only a few
publications dedicated to Laraki (4.1). The information in this chapter, while
referring to the these publications, has therefore been provided in large part
by members of the Laraki community in the context of a group interview
(2.4.1, Appendix 1) and, to a lesser degree, individual interviews (2.4.1,
Appendix 2) and firsthand observations on the part of the research team.
In this part of the study, we first summarize existing research on Laraki
(4.1). We then provide geographic background to Larak Island (4.2) and
social background to the community that inhabits the island (4.3). Finally,
we bring together information on the Laraki language variety (4.4) and describe the sample of Laraki speakers that have taken part in the study (4.5).
4.1 Existing and ongoing research
While some literature exists on Musandam Kumzari (3.1), little has been
published specifically on the inhabitants of Larak Island and their language.
The main written sources on the topic are articles by Lorimer
(1908:2/1086-7) and Najmabadi (1988, 1992). In addition, the Linguistics,
Inscriptions and Texts Research Centre, which is part of the Cultural Heritage Organization in Tehran, has been implementing a project on Laraki.
Results from this project have been disseminated in presentations such as
those given by Afrashi (2008) and Parmoun (2008) at the 1st International
Conference on Iranian Languages and Dialects at the University of Sistan
and Baluchestan in Zahedan. Mohebbi Bahmani, a linguist at Minab University, has also been working on Laraki for several years, and is publishing on
the language in conjunction with this project‘s research team (Anonby &
Mohebbi Bahmani in preparation a, b).
40
4.2 Geographic situation
Larak Island is located on the north side of the Strait of Hormuz, with its
centre at 26.86°N, 56.36°E (see Figure 1 on p. 30 above). The island‘s name,
which is most commonly represented in English as Larak, has also been
spelled L¸rak, Larek and, in early documents, Larrack (Lorimer
1908:2/1086, Thomas 1930:785). Lorimer further gives lārač as an alternate
pronunciation. Locally, the island is known as rārak.
Politically, it falls under the jurisdiction of Hormozgan Province in Iran,
where it constitutes a rural district (Farsi: dehestān) within the municipality
(Farsi: šahrestān) of Qeshm. The nearest land is Qeshm Island (9 km to the
north-west) and Hormuz Island (17.5 km to the north). Bandar-e Abbas on
the Iranian mainland is just over 30 km to the north, and the northern tip of
Musandam Peninsula of Arabia, near Kumzar, is 48 km to the south.
Khasab, the largest settlement on Musandam Peninsula, is 70 km to the
south (geodistance.com).
The island (see Figure 2), which has an oval shape, is 10.5 km long and
6.5 km wide (geodistance.com, Najmabadi 1988:67) and has a total area of
49 km² (Afrashi 2008). It is closely surrounded by deep water, except on the
west side, where an underwater shelf extends almost a kilometer into the
ocean (Lorimer 1908:2/1086). Geologically, it is a salt plug (Kent 1979); the
island‘s surface consists of sandstone mixed with rock salt and iron oxide
(Lorimer 1908). There are a number of rugged conical hills on the island, the
highest of which rises to 155 metres (Lorimer 1908, Afrashi 2008). Besides
some low acacia trees, a few palms, bushes and seasonal grasses, the island
is almost entirely bare of vegetation (field notes; Najmabadi 1988:67). While
there are no longer any large animals on the island, wild gazelle were at one
time numerous (Lorimer 1908). There is one remaining settlement on the
island, Larak-e Shahri, on the north-east shore. Larak-e Kuhi, which was
located near the centre of the island, as well as Salmi and Mowrona, on the
west and north-west shores respectively, have been abandoned (4.3.1).
The island‘s climate is hot in summer (45-48°C in July/August) but cool
in winter (7-10°C in January6, and humidity averages 72% (·m¸rn¸meh-ye
ost¸n-e saheli 1976 in Najmabadi 1988:67).
41
©2009 Google, imagery ©2009 DigitalGlobe, Cnes/Spot Image, GeoEye
Figure 2: A satellite view of Larak Island
4.3 Social situation
A demographic overview is first provided for the population of Larak island
as a whole (4.3.1). The study then narrows in on the Laraki-speaking component, considering first their ethnic identification (4.3.2) and the origins of
the community (4.3.3). Because of their relevance for language use and vitality, patterns of mobility and migration (4.3.4) as well as marriage (4.3.5)
are reviewed alongside a synopsis of the traditional political hierarchy
(4.3.6) and the availability and penetration of formal education among members of the community (4.3.7).
4.3.1 Demographics
The existence of Kumzari speakers on Larak was first signalled in the literature by Lorimer (1908:2/1086), and confirmed by Thomas (1930:785). At
the time of the initial survey of the island by Lorimer, there were two settlements: Labtiyab (lab iyāb), also called L¸rak (lārak), with 30 houses; and
42
Kuh (kūh), with a dozen houses. There was also an abandoned settlement on
the west shore of the island known as Salmi. In total, Lorimer estimated a
population of about 200 inhabitants on the island, and he appears to suggest
that all of the people there spoke Kumzari (p. 1086).
The next population figures for the island, collected seventy years later,
are those of Najmabadi (1988:67, based on fieldwork in 1977), who estimated that there were then 200 households, or 1200 people, living on Larak.
At the time of her research, she identified the same two settlements, with
slight changes to their names: Larak-e Shahri (‗urban Larak‘6, dominated by
Laraki (Kumzari) speakers, and Larak-e Kuhi (‗mountain Larak‘6, inhabited
by Arabic speakers. At this time, Larak-e Shahri had 120 households (or 720
people), and Larak-e Kuhi had 80 households (or 480 people).
Respondents to the group interview noted, however, that the island‘s
population collapsed with the sudden and complete abandonment of Larak-e
Kuhi in the mid-1970s. Respondents did not provide many details of this
event in the group interviews, but Mohebbi Bahmani (pers. comm. 2010),
who has done additional research on the island‘s history, suggests that the
inhabitants of Larak-e Kuhi were ordered by the government of that era to
relocate to a newly constructed settlement in Mowrona, on the north-west
corner of the island. While some of the community moved to Mowrona,
most households emigrated to Sharjah or Ra‘s al-Khaimah in the UAE, and
Khasab in Oman; a handful of families moved to Hengam Island, to the
south of Qeshm Island. After the Islamic Revolution, the families that had
stayed on in Mowrona moved to Larak-e Shahri and, in some cases, Oman.
This upheaval has a parallel in the situation on Hengam Island where, in
1974, inhabitants abruptly abandoned their village after the Iranian administration of the time forced the women to remove their burqas (masks), made
the men wear western clothes rather than the long robes traditionally worn in
the Gulf, and searched the houses for contraband (Najmabadi 1988:69).
We have been unable to obtain official census data, either recent or past,
for the island. Respondents stated that currently, there are about 500 or 600
people living in Larak-e Shahri, the island‘s only remaining permanent settlement, which is on the north-east shore of the island (see Figure 3 below).
The rural district office, however, puts the total at just over 1000 people.
This population is divided into three groups: Laraki-speaking locals, Arabicspeaking locals, and outsiders. A 2009 estimate from the rural district office
(Farsi: dehdāri) put the number of locals at 520, but in 2010 raised the tally
to 702. While the Laraki-speaking population predominates, there are about
30 (four or five families) Arabic-speaking people in the village. In addition,
43
respondents estimate that there are about 100 outsiders; the rural district
office, for its part, puts the number at 300.
There are also a handful of Laraki speakers elsewhere in the region.
©2009 Google, imagery © 2009 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, TerraMetrics /
Map data ©2009 Europa Technologies, LeadDog Consulting
Figure 3: The village of Larak-e Shahri. Note the ruins of the Portuguese fort
slightly above and to the right of the image’s centre (see also Figure 4 and Figure
5), and the school near the non-locals’ housing at the right side.
Assuming that population growth had been similar to elsewhere in Iran and
language use had been stable, the number of Laraki speakers in Larak-e
Shahri would have increased, even to the point of doubling since 1977 when
there were about 720 people. In other words, even after taking account of the
abandonment of Larak-e Kuhi, the island‘s local population is currently only
half of what would be expected under conditions typical for Iran. The factors
behind this bleak state of affairs demand further investigation, but the nationwide trend toward urbanization and regulation may provide a partial
explanation.
As was the case in the early 1900s, the Laraki-speaking population,
which forms the subject of this study, still gains its livelihood primarily by
fishing, limited goat husbandry, and trade. A century ago, there were also
date palms and a small amount of barley cultivation, but these are now gone
(Lorimer 1908:2/1086; field notes). While early records show a trade in salt
from Larak to Musandam Peninsula and Qeshm (Lorimer 1908:2/1086), the
―trade‖ is now of a different sort (see a detailed description of this in Najmabadi 1992). The remaining Arabic-speaking population (cf. 4.3.4) is partially
44
integrated into this community: some of these people fish, and they are muezzins (prayer callers6 for the village‘s mosques. In terms of religious adherence, both groups are uniformly Sunni.
The outsiders come from a variety of places: most are Bandari (from the
coastal settlements of the Iranian side of the Gulf), or from Qeshm Island or
Hormuz Island, but others are from elsewhere in Iran. They work in government-run services at the police station, clinic, school, electricity plant and
desalination plant. While a majority are single men, there are three or four
households among the outsiders.
There are few visitors to the island. Most of those who do come are tourists who come to celebrate Now Ruz (Persian New Year), or hikers interested in exploring the island.
4.3.2 Ethnic identification
As is the case for the Kumzari speakers of Musandam Peninsula (3.2.2), the
ethnic identification of Laraki speakers is complex. At the level of identification of the community, Laraki speakers see themselves as rārakī (this label
comes from their own name for the island, rārak; see 4.2 and 4.4.2). However, they also recognize that their basic ethnicity is something else since, as
will be discussed below (4.3.3), they came from elsewhere. While recognizing diversity in the origins of the community, respondents to the group interview state that as a whole, the Laraki community is of Arab origin.
Laraki speakers suggest that people from elsewhere generally see them as
Laraki. This accords with our observation of how Musandam Kumzari view
them (Anonby van der Wal and Anonby, Musandam field notes). However,
Laraki speakers also note that some groups (especially in the UAE) identify
them as Kumzari and, because of the name of the island, others identify them
as Lari, i.e., from Lar (see 4.3.3).
Lorimer, who collected the first records of ethnicity on Larak, identified
inhabitants of the island as Dhohuri (1908:2/1086), which, along with the
Shihuh, is one of the two main Arab ethnicities of the Musandam Peninsula
(see Dostal 1972). Lorimer noted further that the population of Larak was
closely connected by intermarriage with the Shatair Shihuh of Kumzar (p.
1086; cf. 3.2.2).
Najmabadi (1988, especially pp. 71-2) discusses the topic of Laraki ethnic identity in greater depth. A recurrent theme in her article is the versatility
of the Laraki community, and specifically their capacity to recast their identity according to their context, using the language and even the dress of the
groups they interact with.
45
Najmabadi states that on the island and with Kumzari relatives in Oman,
inhabitants of Larak consider themselves Kumzari. This contrasts with our
observation (in the first paragraph of this subsection) that inhabitants of the
island now view themselves as Laraki rather than Dhohuri or Kumzari. To
be fair, there is a thirty-two year passage of time between her fieldwork in
1977 and our own study; it is possible, then, that because of decreased mobility between Larak and Musandam Kumzari communities in the intervening decades (4.3.46, islanders‘ identification of themselves as Laraki has
become stronger in recent years. It is also the case that Musandam Kumzari
are hesitant to include Laraki speakers under the term ―Kumzari‖; instead,
they also prefer to give them the basic label of ―Laraki‖ (Anonby van der
Wal and Anonby, Musandam field notes).
Najmabadi notes further that Bandari people (inhabitants of the Iranian
coast) consider them Bandari or, on account of their language, Arab. Administrators and merchants who have interactions with Laraki speakers do not
make a distinction between Laraki and Arab speakers on the island; they
consider all of these groups there simply as Laraki.
In any case, Najmabadi says the community on Larak is accepted by
other Iranians as Iranian. There is an interesting disparity between this and
what we found regarding some Laraki speakers‘ own degree of identification
with Iran: when inhabitants of the island use the term ―Iran‖, they are referring specifically to the Iranian mainland, and contrasting it with the islands
of the Gulf.
Finally, Najmabadi states that when visiting Oman, Laraki speakers identify themselves with Musandam Kumzari, presenting themselves as Shihuh
Arab—as do the Musandam Kumzari.
4.3.3 Origins of the ethnic group
According to respondents, the Laraki community is an amalgamation of
people with diverse, but predominantly Arab, origins. In the group interview,
respondents stated that most people come from Khasab and Kumzar, but
others come from different settlements on Musandam Peninsula, including
Qada and Mukhi. One respondent in the group interview stated that his ancestors had come from Arabia, via Qeshm.
In his 1908 article about the island, Lorimer stated more specifically that
its inhabitants are Dhohuri (p. 1086), one of the two main Arab ethnicities of
Musandam Peninsula (4.3.2). This would corroborate respondents‘ own
claim of Arab origins.
In the individual interviews, respondents mentioned a number of additional places in Iran from which their parents came including Qeshm, the
46
mainland of Hormozgan Province and the provinces of Khuzestan, Kurdistan
and Western Azerbaijan (4.5).
Respondents said that they have also heard outsiders conclude that, because Larak means ‗little Lar‘, the inhabitants of Larak must have come
from Lar, a small city in southern Fars Province. However, according to
Zaeimi (2002/2004:40 in Afrashi 2008), the island is called Larak because it
was ruled by the governors of Lar.
Respondents noted that migrations to the island took place sometime between 300 and 500 years ago. Najmabadi (1988:67) is consistent in stating
that inhabitants of Larak are not certain of the precise date of their ancestors‘
migration to the island, but adds that it must have been after 1717, when the
Portuguese left the region: the ruins of a fortress (see Figure 4 and Figure 5),
built following the establishment of Portuguese occupation around 1625,
were already there when the ancestors of today‘s inhabitants arrived.
Our own prior research on the history of the region has revealed further
that the Musandam Kumzari community was closely tied to the Portuguese
evacuation from the Strait of Hormuz. A Kumzari wedding song (in Arabic)
records that the Kumzari took the gates of Hormuz Island‘s fortress back to
Khasab and set them into their own fortress there. These gates were in the
Kumzari fortress in Khasab until they were taken to the National Museum of
Oman sometime before 1970 (Anonby van der Wal and Anonby, Musandam
field notes). It is possible that some of the population of Musandam,
Kumzari as well as Arabic-speaking Shihuh, stayed behind on Larak after
this conquest, although there is no record in the historical wedding songs or
other oral histories.
4.3.4 Mobility and migration
Larak Island remains to some degree isolated. Even now, there is no regular
transport to and from the island. Those who live on the island use their own
motorboats to travel to other islands and the mainland.
Over the past decades, the level of contact between Musandam Kumzari
and the Laraki community has been diminishing. As late as 1977, Najmabadi
(1988:67) observed that Laraki people were maintaining close relations with
their Musandam counterparts: she reported that, at that time, eighty families
rejoined their relatives in Khasab, Oman, each summer.
However, international borders have tightened over the last thirty years,
and presently there is very little contact between Kumzari speakers in
Musandam with those across the Strait. This situation would promote the
divergence of the two varieties, and the degree of divergence should be examined.
47
©2009 Google, imagery © 2009 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, TerraMetrics /
Map data ©2009 Europa Technologies, LeadDog Consulting
Figure 4: A satellite photograph with the ruins of the Portuguese fort circled
Another aspect of migration, and one which has drastically affected the demography of the island, was the abandonment of one of the islands‘ two
original settlements in the mid-1970s. This has been discussed in 4.3.1.
4.3.5 Marriage patterns
Respondents to the group questionnaire stated that there are no restrictions to
marriage among the people of the island, saying: ―There are no clans here;
everyone is the same and we regard people equally‖.
At least historically, marriage was common between families on Larak
and the inhabitants of Kumzar (Lorimer 1908:2/1086, 4.3.2).
48
Figure 5: The interior of the ruins of the Portuguese fort
Endogamy is now the norm, but it is not uncommon for Laraki men to marry
women from outside of Larak. Respondents mentioned that the women come
from places like Qeshm, Hormuz, and Rudan (on the mainland near Minab);
they noted however that Laraki men do not often marry Arab women because they need a passport to do so, and the brideprice for Arab women is
high. Although it is less common than for Laraki men, some Laraki women
also marry people from other places.
4.3.6 Traditional political hierarchy
Najmabadi (1988:67) maintains that, following the end of Portuguese occupation, the region passed into the hands of the Sultan of Muscat in 1717 before finally coming under Iranian control in 1856. The role of the Arab kingdom of Hormuz prior to the entrenchment of the Portuguese and the rule of
the Kumzari sheikhs over the region (3.2.6) in the centuries following their
departure would also have been significant in the island‘s history, but there
is little record of the actual situation on the island. However, in a survey of
Larak Island published in 1908, Lorimer stated:
The people assert that they are independent of any ruler except
of their own Kumz¸ri shaikh at Labtiy¸b village, and up to the
end of 1905 no visible signs of Persian authority existed, but the
49
island was said to be nominally included, along with the islands
of Qishm and Hormūz, among the places farmed to [i.e., subject
to taxes by] the Mu‘-in-ut-Tujjar of Tehr¸n. [footnote:] In May
1906, however, the Imperial Persian Customs authorities at
Bandar ‘Abbas began to construct a hut and erect a flagstaff on
L¸rak, probably as marks of Persian sovereignty. (2/1086-7)
When Najmabadi conducted research in 1977, Larak-e Shahri was the seat of
the island‘s own kadxodā (Persian: ‗chief‘;1988:67). However, there is no
similar traditional authority at present.
4.3.7 Education
There is a primary school in Larak which goes up to level 5, the end of primary school (ebtedā’i). The nearest elementary (rāhnemā’i) and high (dabirestān) schools are in Qeshm and Hormuz, which are respectively ten and
fifteen minutes from Larak by speedboat. The closest private (āzād) university is in Hormuz, and the nearest national (melli) university is in Bandar-e
Abbas, a 40-minute speedboat ride from Larak.
While most older speakers of Laraki have not attended school, respondents to the group interview stated that most of the children on Larak now go
to school and complete the third year of elementary school. A few go on to
high school. When they are finished with school, most go on to earn a livelihood by fishing, because there are few other jobs available.
Apart from one Larak-based Hormuzi family, all the children at the
school are from Larak.
4.4 The Laraki language variety
Here, we give an overview of the Laraki language variety based on information gathered in the group interview and supplemented by additional sources.
After defining the distribution of Laraki (4.4.1) and providing an inventory
of various names by which people refer to it (4.4.2), we discuss its relationship to other languages (4.4.3) and give a foretaste of the adaptive multilingualism that characterizes the language community (4.4.4).
4.4.1 Language distribution
Laraki is spoken primarily in Larak-e Shahri, the remaining settlement on
Larak Island, by about 700 individuals, of whom about 670 speak it as a
mother tongue (4.3.1). Apart from this, it is still spoken by some of the large
group of (mostly mother tongue Arabic-speaking) islanders who migrated to
the UAE (4.3.1, 4.3.4), a few families in Khasab and neighbouring commu-
50
nities in Musandam (cf. Anonby van der Wal and Anonby, Musandam field
notes), and a handful of emigrants from Larak to Qeshm and Hormuz.3
4.4.2 Language name
In the group interview, individual interviews and informal conversations,
speakers of Laraki almost always referred to their language as rārakī (adv.
rārakīnī or rārakītī ‗[speaking] in Laraki‘6. In a few cases, speakers also
referred to their language as kumzārī. The prevalence of speakers‘ use of the
label rārakī contrasts with Najmabadi‘s (1988:676 observation that, among
themselves, speakers call their language ―komzāri‖ (kumzārī).
According to respondents, most outsiders think that Farsi is spoken on
Larak Island. However, they state that those groups outside the island that
are more familiar with Larak give various labels to the language spoken
there:
Bandari people (people from the Iranian coast) and people from
Qeshm Island call the language lārakī;
People from the United Arab Emirates call it kumzārī;
Most people from Khasab in Oman call it rōrukī; and
Musandam Kumzari (most of whom are Kumzar and Khasab) call it
rārakī.
From our research in Musandam Peninsula, we found that speakers of
Musandam Kumzari in fact call the language rārukī. Regarding other labels
given to the language spoken there, it is also worth mentioning that a Persian
photo journalist we met before our field trip to the island said that, along
with the other islands in the Gulf, the language spoken on Larak is jazīrati
(Persian: ‗pertaining to the island‘; pers. comm. Atosa Mahmoudi 2008).
In the group interview, respondents stated that the language they speak
was originally the same as Kumzari. However, their language was named
after Larak Island by the original migrants to the island who came from Arabia (4.3.3). Because of this, respondents felt that Laraki was a more appropriate name for their language than Kumzari. In other words, they identify
the language with where it is spoken more than with its place of origin.
Regarding the name of the island, after which the language has in turn
been named, speakers said that the term Larak does not have any lexical
3
On an internet chat site, we also observed mention of Kumzari being spoken on the island of
Abu Musa in Iran (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-248540.html). However, this suggestion was unfamiliar to the Laraki speakers we interviewed; it is probably the
result of a mix-up between Larak Island and Abu Musa.
51
designation of its own, but means ‗little Lar‘, referring to the city of Lar in
southern Fars Province (see 4.3.3).
4.4.3 Relation to other languages
Respondents to the group interview stated that besides Kumzari (see 5.2
below), there is no language that is closely related to Laraki. They stated that
while the language is a mixture of Portuguese, English, Arabic and Farsi, it
is completely different from these languages, and that there is nowhere else
in Iran that people speak something similar to Laraki.
Respondents noted that some speakers of Bandari, Hormuzi and Qeshmi
understand some Laraki words, even though they are unable to speak Laraki.
Still, they maintain that there is no relationship between Laraki and these
varieties, despite the fact that they are spoken only a short distance away.
They also stated that outsiders think that Laraki is close to Farsi, but respondents themselves think that in fact their language is closer to Arabic.
This seems to be related to the idea that the language came from Kumzar,
which is on the Arabian side of the Gulf (4.4.2), and it is consistent with
perceptions of the Kumzari population in Musandam (3.3.2).
There are no comparative comments specifically on Laraki in previous
literature, but comparative comments on Kumzari are reviewed above
(3.3.2), and the relation between Laraki and Musandam Kumzari is discussed in Chapter 5 below.
4.4.4 Adaptive multilinguals: An overview of language on
Larak
In the group interview, it emerged that while Laraki speakers use their
mother tongue in many domains, most regularly use at least three other languages for certain domains or when interacting with speakers of these languages. This pattern of adaptation, which was identified in Najmabadi
(1988:71-2), is examined in depth in the present study. Typical languages of
multilingualism are Farsi, Arabic, and at least one of the following varieties
spoken in the region: Qeshmi, Bandari or Hormuzi (see 6.1.1). In Chapters 6
and 7, the breakdown of multilingualism by social situation and domain is
detailed using data from the individual questionnaires. Language attitudes in
this multilingual context are described in Chapter 8, and language vitality
and viability are examined in Chapter 9.
52
4.5 Population samples
We worked with a sample of the general Laraki-speaking population (4.3,
4.4) for each of the research tools: group questionnaire (4.5.1), individual
questionnaire (4.5.2), lexicostatistic analysis (wordlist elicitation; 4.5.3) and
recorded text tests (RTTs) (4.5.4).
Samples ranged from small collective groups, in the case of the wordlist
elicitation and group questionnaire, to 36 separately interviewed respondents
in the case of the individual questionnaire.
As is detailed in the sub-sections below, the sampling procedure for the
present study was designed and implemented in consideration of contextspecific social factors; many of Tiessen‘s (2003:21-43) observations on the
role of context in sociolinguistic survey are pertinent in this regard. For example, while adult population segments of all ages and both sexes were represented for the individual questionnaire, for the other tools the sample was
limited to men and, in the case of RTTs, younger and middle-aged men. This
imbalance in the sample reflects limitations in possibilities for interaction
between the research team and the Laraki community, where there was little
enthusiasm for the participation of women in the research process.
4.5.1 Group questionnaire
For the group sociolinguistic questionnaire (2.4.1), we gathered a small
group of men representing older, middle-aged and younger members of the
community. Although we requested that the group include women as well as
men, no women were present for the group interview. Answers to the group
questionnaire are presented along with the questionnaire itself in Appendix
1.
4.5.2 Individual questionnaire
The sample for the individual sociolinguistic questionnaire (2.4.1; Appendix
1) was comprised of 36 subjects, selected according to sex and age. We
specified three age groups: younger (9-24 years old), middle-aged (25-49
years old) and older (50 years old or more). Consequently, there are six basic
groups of six subjects each by which the subject sample may be defined, as
shown in the Table 1 below.
53
male
female
TOTAL
younger (9-24 years)
6
6
12
middle-aged (25-49 years)
6
6
12
older (50+ years)
6
6
12
TOTAL
18
18
36
Table 1: Subject grouping for individual questionnaires
Due to hesitation on the part of subjects, especially older women, it was
difficult to satisfy our quotas. However, because this sample provides a representative window into the composition and features of the community as a
whole, we persisted and it was well worth the effort. Here, we summarize
details of respondents‘ demographic background: birthplace, place of residence, parents‘ place of origin, mother tongue, language respondents‘ parents used with them during childhood, and level of formal education.
Birthplace
Of the 36 respondents, 35 were born in Larak and grew up there. The remaining respondent, an older male, was born in Khasab, Oman, where he
lived for fifteen years.
Current and former place of residence
All the respondents currently live in Larak. Other places where respondents
have lived for more than one year are Khasab (3 respondents), Qeshm Island
(2), Kumzar (1), Hormuz Island (1) and Hengam Island (immediately south
of Qeshm Island; 1).
Parents’ place of origin
While most respondents indicated that their father was born in Larak, fathers
of 7 respondents were born elsewhere: Kumzar (3), Khasab (2), Gachin (on
the mainland north of Qeshm Island; 1), and Western Azerbaijan Province of
Iran (1). Similarly, most respondents‘ mothers were born in Larak. However,
the mothers of 11 respondents were born elsewhere: Qeshm Island (3),
Gachin (2), Dulab (Kurdistan Province of Iran; 2), Kumzar (1), Khasab (1),
Abadan Province of Iran (1) and Gorbodon (1). One respondent did not
know deceased parents‘ places of origin.
54
Mother tongue
34 of the 36 respondents consider Laraki their mother tongue. The older
male who was born in Khasab speaks Arabic as a mother tongue, and one
younger male speaks Qeshmi as a mother tongue.
Language parents used with respondents during childhood
Most respondents indicated that both parents spoke Laraki with them when
they were growing up. However, 2 respondents‘ fathers spoke Arabic with
children, and one used both Qeshmi and Laraki; and while 2 mothers used
Qeshmi with their children, one used Arabic.
Education
Of the 36 respondents, 23 have some education (although none have attended university), and 13 have not gone to school. Most of those who have
not gone to school (11 of 13) are older subjects, and 2 are middle-aged.
4.5.3 Lexicostatistic analysis
For lexicostatistic analysis, which we measured by means of a wordlist
(2.4.2; Appendix 3), our subject sample included men representing a range
of ages. Because of difficulty in securing subject participation for long periods of time, there was ongoing turnover of subjects during the elicitation and
recording of the list. For most, but not all of the elicitation procedure, at least
two speakers were present. There were minor but consistent variations
among speakers who participated; however, these have had little effect on
the lexicostatistic results of the wordlist, since they are primarily phonological rather than lexical.4 A discussion of variation, along with a comparison
between selected linguistic features of Laraki and Musandam Kumzari, has
been reserved for Anonby and Mohebbi Bahmani (in preparation a).
4.5.4 Recorded text tests (RTTs)
For the RTTs (recorded text tests) (2.4.3; Appendix 4), which we used to
measure the intelligibility of Musandam Kumzari to Laraki speakers, twelve
younger and middle-aged male respondents participated. In order to ensure
that we were evaluating inherent intelligibility rather than acquired intelligibility (2.4.3), we screened respondents to ensure that their exposure to
Musandam Kumzari was limited; still, because of the small number of subjects willing to take the test, most of the respondents had had a minimal level
of contact with speakers of Musandam Kumzari: specifically, most of the
4
In light of the turnover of speakers during the elicitation of the wordlist, Mohebbi Bahmani
later verified elements of the wordlist to ensure consistency, and eventually returned to Larak
and gathered the entire wordlist again from a single speaker.
55
respondents had made day trips to Khasab or Kumzar, Oman, at least once a
year. Of the twelve respondents, the results of three were disqualified: two
respondents did not achieve a minimum threshold of correct answers to
questions on the control text in their own language variety, and one did not
complete the test.
While it would have been ideal to work with a parallel sample of women,
who would likely have even less exposure to Musandam Kumzari, the member of the research team who was trained to conduct RTTs was male; in consideration of the conservative social context, this rendered the testing of
women unworkable.
56
5 Defining Kumzari varieties
In this chapter, we outline the distribution of Kumzari varieties (5.1) and
examine perceptions of relatedness between the two major divisions, Laraki
and Musandam Kumzari (5.2). We then quantify the proximity of relationship between these two varieties by looking at lexical similarity (5.3) and
intelligibility (5.4). Finally, we review these topics and conclude that Laraki
and Musandam Kumzari should be viewed as dialects of a single language,
Kumzari (5.5).
5.1 Distribution of Kumzari varieties
There are two main varieties of Kumzari: Kumzari of Musandam Peninsula,
and Laraki. These varieties correspond exactly to the two groups of speakers
described in sections 3.2.1 and 4.3.1: those from Musandam Peninsula, and
those from Larak Island in Iran.
Within each of the main varieties, we have observed minor sociolectal
differences which correspond to factors such as age, sex, lineage, and exposure to other languages (3.2.6, 3.3.3; variants are marked in the Kumzari
dictionary in preparation by Anonby, Anonby van der Wal and al-Kumzari).
5.2 Perceptions of relatedness
Here, we review perceptions of relationship between Musandam Kumzari
and Laraki as expressed in the literature, by speakers of Musandam Kumzari,
by speakers of Laraki themselves, and based on our own experience.
Only two sources mention Musandam Kumzari and Laraki together:
Thomas (1929:785) and Najmabadi (1988:67). In both cases, the authors
imply that Laraki is a dialect of Kumzari, since they state that Kumzari is
spoken on Larak Island.
Among Kumzari speakers of Musandam Peninsula, we have repeatedly
observed the ambivalent assertion that while Laraki is like Kumzari, it is also
distinct. They call the language of Laraki speakers rārukī, and say that it is
spoken with an ―Iranian accent‖. In general, Musandam Kumzari speakers
have little interaction with people from Larak, and although many see
57
Kumzari as the historical source of Laraki, they are unsure as to whether
Laraki should be considered a dialect of Kumzari, or a separate language.
On Larak, there is a similar ambivalence about the relationship of
Musandam Kumzari to Laraki. In group interviews as well as informal conversations, Laraki speakers tended to agree that Musandam Kumzari was
similar to Laraki, but referred to it as a separate language (Persian: zabān,
Laraki: mayma), stating that while people in Musandam speak kumzārī ‗the
language of Kumzar‘, the people on Larak speak rārakī ‗the language of
Larak‘. Differences that speakers cited between the two varieties regarded
vocabulary as well as the fact that Kumzari speakers in Musandam draw
their words out more. This differentiation of the two similar varieties could
well be due to absence of a technical distinction between language and dialect on the part of speakers: the idea seemed to prevail among speakers that
whatever the relation might be between varieties, people speak the language
of the place they come from.
In a few of the individual interviews, however, respondents used the term
Kumzari when they were clearly referring to Laraki; for example, one person
whose parents are both from Larak, and who was born in Larak, stated that
he spoke ―Kumzari‖ as a mother tongue. Conversely, a few respondents used
the term ―Kumzari‖ to refer specifically to Musandam Kumzari. For example, when we asked respondents what languages they spoke in addition to
Laraki, one mentioned Kumzari.
Finally, one piece of anecdotal evidence that provides insight into Laraki
speakers‘ dual perception of the relation between Musandam Kumzari and
Laraki: when they were emphasizing that the Musandam variety spoken by
some of the research team was different than what they spoke, they called it
Kumzari; but when they were underscoring that it was similar to their language, we heard people telling each other that we spoke Laraki!
As for the experience of two of our research team, who have been based
among the Musandam Kumzari community: we found that Laraki speakers
were able to understand us with little difficulty when we spoke to them; and
once we learned a few major lexical differences between Musandam
Kumzari and Laraki, we were in turn able to understand Laraki speakers to a
moderate degree.
5.3 Lexical similarity
Our first means of quantifying the proximity of the relationship between
Laraki and other varieties is lexicostatistical: identifying apparent cognates
between wordlists in the two varieties and tallying these to arrive at a measure of lexical similarity. The other varieties under consideration are Persian
58
(Modern Standard Farsi), Arabic (Modern Standard) and Kumzari of
Musandam Peninsula.
The measurement of lexical similarity between Laraki, Persian and Arabic (5.3.1) situates Laraki generally within its historical and regional context,
and provides a broad assessment in conjunction with which hypotheses of
genetic relationship and historical influences may be evaluated. The measurement of lexical similarity between Laraki and Musandam Kumzari
(5.3.2), for its part, is valuable as an initial means of addressing the question
of whether the two varieties should be considered dialects of a single language or separate languages.
To this end, we used two standard wordlists consisting of basic vocabulary items: a 100-item Swadesh wordlist, and a 240-item wordlist for Iranian
languages which contains the 100-item list as a subset (2.4.2). These wordlists, completed for Laraki and Musandam Kumzari, are found in Appendix
3. The percentages of lexical similarity that we present here are the result of
our own judgments of apparent (visible rather than necessarily historical)
cognicity. Although comparison by inspection is efficient, it has fundamental
limitations (Kessler 2001), so that intelligibility testing (5.4) is especially
important in corroborating inferences of linguistic similarity.
Specific linguistic correspondences and differences between these two
varieties, many of which are evident from the wordlists, are treated elsewhere (Anonby and Mohebbi Bahmani, in preparation a).
Percentages of lexical similarity for all varieties, discussed further in the
following subsections (5.3.1 and 5.3.2), are assembled for the 100-item and
240-item wordlists in Table 2 and Table 3:
Kumzari
70 93
Arabic
8
12 17
Laraki
Arabic
72
Kumzari
Laraki
Persian
Persian
Table 2: Percentages of lexical similarity, 100-item Swadesh wordlist
59
Persian
Laraki
63
Kumzari
60 88
Arabic
8
Arabic
Kumzari
Laraki
Persian
10 19
Table 3: Percentages of lexical similarity, 240-item wordlist
5.3.1 Laraki with Persian and Arabic
In the 100-item and 240-item wordlists, we identified the following levels of
lexical similarity with Laraki:
Persian (Modern Standard)
Arabic (Modern Standard)
100-item wordlist
240-item wordlist
72%
12%
63%
10%
On the one hand, the predominance of Laraki wordlist items similar to
Persian (72%/63%) is compatible with the hypothesis that, genetically, it is
an Iranian variety (3.3.2). This is especially true of the inner core of vocabulary as measured by the Swadesh 100-item wordlist, which yields a figure of
72% similarity.
On the other hand, the noticeable level of lexical similarity between
Laraki and Arabic wordlists (12%/10%) points to significant Arabic influence in the constitution of the Laraki lexicon. Even Persian, which has been
influenced by Arabic to a significant degree and for which half of the overall
lexicon comes from Arabic (Windfuhr 1997:676), exhibits only 8% lexical
similarity with Arabic in the 100-item and 240-item wordlists (5.3), which
are limited to basic vocabulary. In a larger vocabulary list, Musandam
Kumzari shows a much higher level of similarity to Arabic than is found in
the basic wordlists, and this is likely true of Laraki as well.
5.3.2 Laraki with Musandam Kumzari
In the 100-item Swadesh wordlist, we identified 93 pairs (93%) of Laraki
and Musandam Kumzari items as apparent cognates.
60
In the 240-item standard wordlist, we similarly identified 210 pairs (88%)
of Laraki and Musandam Kumzari items as apparent cognates.
Both wordlists, then, generate high percentages of lexical similarity: 93%
and 88%. This underlines the possibility that Laraki and Musandam Kumzari
might well be considered dialects of a single language. Still, as we noted in
2.4.2, lexicostatistical findings between about 70 and 95% are inadequate for
providing a reliable initial indication as to whether two varieties should be
considered dialects of a single language or separate languages. For this reason, we have considered it essential to measure intelligibility as an additional
means of determining the status of the relationship between Laraki and
Musandam Kumzari (5.4).
As the tables in 5.3 show, Laraki has a marginally higher level of lexical
similarity with Persian than Musandam Kumzari does (72%/63% vs.
70/60%), and Laraki is conversely lexically less similar to Arabic than
Musandam Kumzari (12%/10% vs. 17%/19%). This likely reflects a pattern
of divergence between the two varieties since their separation several hundred years ago (4.3.3), with Laraki re-approaching other Iranian languages,
and Musandam Kumzari continuing to gravitate toward Arabic. As such, it
appears from the lexicons of the four varieties (Persian, Laraki, Musandam
Kumzari and Arabic) that there is an Arabic–Iranian language continuum
across the Strait of Hormuz. This idea will be developed in Anonby and Mohebbi Bahmani (in preparation a).
5.4 Intelligibility between dialects
In addition to measuring lexical similarity, we administered recorded text
tests (RTTs) as a second means of quantifying the proximity between Laraki
and Kumzari of Musandam Peninsula (see 2.4.3 for a description of RTTs).
In particular, we measured intelligibility in one direction: how well speakers
of Laraki understand Musandam Kumzari.
As expected, the nine qualifying subjects (2.4.3, 4.5.4) scored well on the
control test in Laraki (Appendix 4, p. 144), with an average of 96% (standard deviation = .10) of questions answered correctly.
61
Respondent
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
TOTAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
6
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
7
7
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
9
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
(1=correct, .5=half correct, 0=incorrect; see 2.4.3)
AVERAGE=9.56
STANDARD DEVIATION=.101
Table 4: Laraki responses to Laraki control test
For the Musandam Kumzari test (Appendix 4, p. 147), on average, Laraki
respondents answered 72% (standard deviation = .12) of questions correctly
(Table 5). This indicates that Musandam Kumzari is ―marginally‖ (Grimes
1995: 3.10) intelligible to speakers of Laraki.
Respondent
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
TOTAL
1
0
1
1
0.5
0
1
0
1
1
1
6.5
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
6
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
8
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
9
6
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
0
1
1
7.5
7
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
8
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
8
9
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
8
(1=correct, .5=half correct, 0=incorrect; see 2.4.3)
AVERAGE=7.22
STANDARD DEVIATION=.123
Table 5: Laraki responses to Musandam Kumzari intelligibility test
Because all respondents answered at least half of the questions on the
Musandam Kumzari text correctly (including several that had little or no
62
previous exposure to that dialect; see a description of the sample in 4.5.4),
and because the standard deviation is not particularly high given the limited
sample size, it is plausible that the results reflect inherent (and not just acquired) intelligibility5 (2.4.3B. Grimes in Bergman 1990:215).
In an open-ended evaluation after testing, we wrote down subjects‘ opinions on how easy or difficult it had been for them to understand the Musandam Kumzari story. Four respondents said that it had not been difficult to
understand, three indicated that some things were unfamiliar, and three respondents said that it had been difficult.
In short, results from the RTT suggest that Musandam Kumzari is, to a
marginal degree, inherently intelligible to speakers of Laraki. This confirms
a close structural relationship between the two varieties, although it leaves
open the question of whether they should be considered or highly differentiated dialects or closely related languages (2.4.2; Bergman 1989:8.1.5,
Anonby 2001:6).
5.5 Summary
We conclude that, although there are significant structural differences between the two varieties and social difference between their speakers, it is
appropriate to classify Laraki and Musandam Kumzari as dialects of a single
language, Kumzari. This conclusion is based on the observations and data
given in the discussion above, the most salient of which are ambivalence on
the part of speakers regarding the proximity of relationship between the two
varieties (5.2); a high degree of lexical similarity (5.3); and a marginal degree of inherent intelligibility (5.4).
5
Because inherent intelligibility between two language varieties is often (but not always)
similar in both directions, it would be instructive to compare these results with results from a
reciprocal test measuring how well Musandam Kumzari speakers understand a Laraki text.
63
6 Language Use
In this chapter, we investigate language use by the Laraki community in
reference to general patterns of multilingualism (6.1) and language use in
specific domains (6.2).
6.1 Multilingualism
Multilingualism is the norm on Larak Island. Most members of the population sample for the individual questionnaire are proficient to some degree in
at least four language varieties: Laraki, Farsi, Arabic, and Qeshmi or another
regional variety such as Bandari, the lingua franca centred in Bandar-e
Abbas (see 6.1.3 below).
In this section, we list and define the main language varieties in which
speakers are proficient (6.1.1). We then look at the order in which subjects
have learned these languages (6.1.2). Finally, we evaluate the degree to
which subjects are proficient in various skill areas for each of these languages, with special attention given to Farsi and Arabic (6.1.3).
Aspirations for proficiency in additional languages are treated separately
in section 8.3 along with other issues that relate to language attitudes.
6.1.1 Languages of multilingualism
Before detailing patterns of multilingualism, it is instructive to explain what
Laraki respondents mean when they refer to various language varieties. We
arrived at an understanding of how these labels are used by seeing how they
were used in group and individual questionnaires, through supplementary
discussion with members of the community, and by consulting Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani, who is working on Laraki (see 4.1). (The referential value of
the label ―Kumzari‖ has already been discussed in 3.2.2, 3.3.1 and 4.4.2.)
Farsi: here, refers to Modern Standard Persian or spoken Farsi of Fars
Province and north-central Iran; as used by respondents, this does
not usually include Bandari, Qeshmi or Hormuzi, and never includes Laraki (see immediately below in this list).
64
Arabic: any variety of Arabic including Modern Standard, Gulf, and
Kuhi/Shihhi/Bedouin (of Larak and Musandam Peninsula).
Bandari: varieties spoken along the Iranian coast, especially in central
Hormozgan Province, and referring in particular to the regional
lingua franca that has emerged out of Bandar-e Abbas.
Qeshmi: limited to varieties spoken on Qeshm Island, related to and
occasionally referred to as a Bandari variety.
Hormuzi: the variety spoken on Hormuz Island, closely related to Bandari and often referred to as a Bandari variety.
Turkish: may refer to any Turkic variety: Turkish of Turkey, Azerbaijani of Iran or Azerbaijan, or Qashqa‘i of Fars Province.
6.1.2 Order of languages learned
In the individual questionnaires, we asked respondents which language they
learned first and, if relevant, which languages they learned second and third.
The purpose of this question is, then, obviously two-fold: to see what languages people know, and the order in which these languages are learned.
Both of these indicators provide a rough initial profile of languages‘ relative
primacy in the community.6
Within the sample, 94% of respondents stated that they learned Laraki
first; 3% (i.e., 1 of 36 respondents) learned Arabic first, and 3% learned
Qeshmi first.
92% of respondents indicated that they spoke a second language. Of
these, 66% stated that they learned Farsi second, 12% Qeshmi, 6% Laraki,
6% Bandari, 3% Arabic, 3% Kumzari of Musandam Peninsula and 3%
Farsi/―Ajami‖.7
78% of respondents indicated that they spoke a third language. Of these,
64% stated that they learned Arabic third, 14% Farsi, 11% Qeshmi, 7%
Farsi/Arabic, and 4% Qeshmi/Bandari.
These results are summarized in Figure 6.8
For example, a language which is learned first most often remains a person‘s primary language; and a language which people learn at school is usually better-established than one they
learn as an adult. Of course, other configurations are possible, and the questionnaires in this
study are set up to ascertain divergence from this pattern.
7
The use of the term ―Ajami‖ here is problematic; while it appears to have been used in opposition to the term ―Farsi‖, the terms are commonly considered equivalents in Iran. Consequently, it may refer to any or all mainland Iranian varieties: here, probably Bandari and/or
Farsi.
8
For the purposes of this table, split answers such as ―Farsi/Arabic‖ have been given a proportional value: 1/2 when two languages are specified.
6
65
100%
90%
% of respondents
80%
other; n/a
70%
Bandari
60%
Qeshmi
50%
Arabic
40%
Farsi
30%
Laraki
20%
10%
third
second
first
0%
Figure 6: Languages learned first, second and third
The strongest general patterns that may be deduced from responses are
Laraki as a first language, Farsi as a second language, and Arabic as a third
language.
In light of responses to this question, where 78% of subjects indicated
that they know a third language, and the fact that the majority of respondents
indicated proficiency in at least four languages in the more detailed analyses
of multilingualism below (6.1.3), it is clear that it would have been useful to
ask participants what languages they learned fourth (and perhaps even fifth).
It is likely that Qeshmi, for which half of respondents claim some proficiency, and Bandari, for which a third of respondents claim some proficiency, would emerge as the most common fourth and fifth languages, respectively.
6.1.3 Multilingual proficiency
In the individual questionnaire, we looked at levels of proficiency in languages other than Laraki, with a concentration on Farsi and Arabic. For
these two languages, we asked speakers to report their proficiency levels
with reference to four language skills: understanding, speaking, reading and
writing.
Respondents indicated that they understand Farsi as follows: 53% said
that they understand it very well, 31% well, 14% a little, and 3% not at all.
66
Concerning Arabic, 19% said they understand it very well, 14% well, 61% a
little, and 6% not at all. Other language varieties for which respondents reported various levels of understanding are as follows: Qeshmi (18 of 36 respondents), Bandari (12), Balochi (2), Hormuzi (1), Minabi (1), Urdu (1),
Hindi (1) and English (1). One respondent also made a distinction between
Arabic, which they stated that they understood a little, and the Kuhi (Bedouin or ―Mountain‖6 Arabic spoken on Larak, which they stated that they
understood very well.
Respondents indicated that they are able to speak Farsi as follows: 44%
said that they speak it very well, 28% well, 25% a little, and 3% not at all.
Concerning Arabic, 6% said they speak it very well, 14% well, 60% a little,
and 20% not at all. Other language varieties for which respondents reported
various levels of speaking proficiency are as follows: Qeshmi (18 of 36 respondents), Bandari (11), Balochi (1), Hormuzi (1), Urdu (1), English (1)
and Kuhi Arabic (1; see the comment in the previous paragraph).
Respondents indicated that they are able to read Farsi as follows: 33%
said that they read it very well, 11% well, 17% a little, and 39% not at all.
Concerning Arabic, 17% said they read it very well, 11% well, 22% a little,
and 50% not at all. The only other language variety for which respondents
reported various levels of reading proficiency was English (2 of 36 respondents).
Respondents indicated that they are able to write Farsi as follows: 28%
said that they write it very well, 11% well, 28% a little, and 33% not at all.
Concerning Arabic, 22% said they write it very well, 6% well, 17% a little,
and 56% not at all. The only other language varieties for which respondents
reported various levels of writing proficiency were English (2 of 36 respondents) and Qeshmi (1).
Reported proficiency in Farsi and Arabic is summarized by language and
skill type in Figure 7.
67
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
good
40%
very good
50%
40%
10%
0%
0%
writing (F)
20%
10%
reading (F)
20%
speaking (F)
30%
understanding
(F)
30%
writing (A)
50%
60%
reading (A)
a little
speaking (A)
none
60%
understanding
(A)
70%
Figure 7: Reported proficiency for given language skills
in Farsi (left) and Arabic (right)
One pattern which is clear for the sample as a whole is higher proficiency in
Farsi than in Arabic; this is the case across all language skill areas. A second
strong pattern is a greater overall proficiency in oral language skills (understanding and speaking) than in written skills (reading and writing). A variation within this second pattern is that the proportion of respondents who read
and write Arabic well or very well is similar to those who understand and
speak the language well or very well. This effect may result from the importance the community places on the recitation and copying of the Qur‘an.
The prevalence and degree of proficiency in Qeshmi and Bandari merits
further consideration, since both of these varieties are widely used.
6.2 Language use by domain
In this section we look at language use by domain. The domain of media is
treated separately in Chapter 7, where language choices for media are situated within a discussion of media use and the availability of various languages in the media.
In the individual questionnaires, we asked subjects what language they
use most often with older people, with younger people, and with children. In
each case, all respondents indicated that they use Laraki most often. In activ-
68
ity- or location-related domains, respondents listed the language they most
often use as follows:
chatting with friends: 100% Laraki
in the home: 97% Laraki, 3% Laraki/Hormuzi
arguing: 97% Laraki, 3% Laraki/Farsi
recounting stories of the ancestors: 97% Laraki, 3% Farsi
working outdoors (e.g., gardening or fishing): 94% Laraki, 3%
Laraki/Farsi, 3% Arabic
talking (conversation) in the mosque: 94% Laraki, 6% Arabic
council / local government: 81% Laraki, 17% Farsi (note that all of
these were male), 3% Laraki/Farsi
counting: 56% Farsi, 36% Laraki, 3% Laraki/Farsi, 3% Farsi/Arabic,
3% Arabic
praying (Persian: do’ā ‗spontaneous prayer‘6 at home: 58% Laraki,
17% Arabic, 14% Farsi, 6% Laraki/Farsi, 6% Arabic/Farsi
songs learned from parents: 44% haven‘t learned songs from their
parents, 31% Laraki, 11% Arabic, 8% Farsi, 3% Laraki/Farsi, 3%
Arabic/Farsi
at the market (Persian: bāzār) (note that the nearest markets are in
Qeshm and Bandar-e Abbas): 39% Laraki, 33% Farsi, 8%
Laraki/Farsi, 6% Qeshmi, 6% Laraki/Qeshmi, 6% Farsi/Qeshmi, 3%
Laraki/Farsi/Qeshmi (―whatever the person speaks‖6
at the local clinic: 39% Laraki/Farsi (most of these respondents
specified that they spoke Farsi with the doctor and Laraki with local
people at the clinic), 31% Farsi, 25% Laraki, 3% Farsi/Bandari, 3%
Laraki/Qeshmi
These results are summarized in Figure 8 below.9
For the purposes of this chart, split answers such as ―Laraki/Farsi‖ have been given a proportional value of the percentages in the list above: 1/2 when two languages are specified, and
1/3 when three are specified.
9
69
100%
90%
% of respondents
80%
70%
other; n/a
60%
Qeshmi
50%
Arabic
40%
Farsi
30%
Laraki
20%
counting
local clinic
market
praying do'ā
local government
talking at the mosque
working outdoors
ancestors' stories
arguing
in the home
with children
chatting with friends
with younger people
with older people
0%
songs from parents
10%
Figure 8: Languages respondents most often use, by domain
In group questionnaires, respondents made the additional observation that
students are allowed to use Laraki when speaking to one another at school,
and they do so. However, students and teachers use Farsi (sometimes mixed
with Bandari) when speaking with one another.
In summary, it is evident that Laraki predominates in domains involving
communication among speakers of Laraki. A clear exception to this pattern
is counting, which is more often done in Farsi than in Laraki. The use of
Farsi as well as Arabic is also notable for praying (do’ā) and songs learned
from parents. For domains in which Laraki speakers communicate with people outside of the language community, a pattern of accommodation emerges
in which Laraki speakers switch to other languages.
70
7 Media and language
In both group and individual questionnaires, we examined issues relating to
media and language. While the availability of languages in the media (7.2)
was catalogued in both types of questionnaires, we focussed in the individual
questionnaire on personal patterns of media use (7.1), language choices in
media (7.3), and aspirations for written materials in Laraki (7.4).
7.1 Media use
When we asked individuals if they used specific media often, 92% of subjects responded affirmatively for television, 53% for films10, 42% for radio,
28% for tapes and CDs, 44% for books and magazines, 39% for newspapers,
and 0% for internet. Media use is summarized in Figure 9.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
rs
er
ne
t
in
t
es
ne
w
az
in
ag
m
bo
ok
s&
sp
ap
e
CD
s
&
ra
di
o
ta
pe
s
s
fil
m
te
le
v
isi
o
n
% of respondents
Figure 9: Percentage of respondents who use given media “often”
In the course of the individual interviews, it became evident that the term ‗films‘ can refer
to two different things: films which are viewed in the cinema, and those which are viewed on
television. Since there is no cinema on Larak, it is likely that respondents were most often
thinking of television films when we used the term ‗films‘.
10
71
The proportion of females who responded affirmatively to this question
exceeded the proportion of males for all media: 100% of females (f.) and
83% of males (m.) for television, 72% f. and 33% m. for films, 67% f. and
17% m. for radio, 33% f. and 22% m. for tapes and CDs, 67% f. and 22% m.
for books and magazines, 61% f. and 17% m. for newspapers. As stated in
the previous paragraph, there were no affirmative responses for this question
with respect to internet use. Media use, by sex, is summarized in Figure 10.
120
% of respondents
100
80
female
60
male
40
20
o
s&
ok
s&
CD
s
m
ag
az
in
ne
es
w
sp
ap
er
s
in
te
rn
et
ra
di
ta
pe
s
m
f il
bo
te
le
vi
si
on
0
Figure 10: Percentage of respondents who use a given medium “often”, by sex
In most cases, the proportion of self-reported media use was also higher for
younger respondents. 92% of younger (y.) subjects, 100% of middle-aged
(mid.) subjects and 83% of older (o.) subjects responded affirmatively for
television; 83% y., 50% mid. and 25% o. for films; 50% y., 33% mid. and
42% o. for radio; 58% y., 17% mid. and 8% o. for tapes and CDs; 66% y.,
50% mid. and 17% o. for books and magazines; and 50% y., 50% mid. and
17% o. for newspapers. As stated above, there were no affirmative responses
for this question with respect to internet use. Media use, by age, is summarized in Figure 11.
72
120
% of respondents
100
80
younger
60
middle-aged
older
40
20
ne
t
te
r
in
sp
ap
e
rs
es
ag
az
in
m
s&
ok
s&
bo
ne
w
s
CD
o
ra
di
s
m
f il
ta
pe
te
le
vi
si
on
0
Figure 11: Percentage of respondents who use a given
medium “often”, by age
7.2 Availability of languages in the media
In group and individual questionnaires, we asked respondents about the languages in which different types of media are available to them.
Farsi and Arabic are, of course, used in all of the media types we considered in this study. However, respondents noted that the availability of some
media in these languages—especially written media—is limited (books and
magazines, and newspapers) or almost non-existent (internet) on Larak Island. In addition, there are legal barriers to reception of non-Iranian television stations, which means that almost all of the abundant Arabic television
programming available in the region is not officially permitted.
Media representation of local languages and dialects has been established
in many areas of Iran, but this is not the case for Laraki, the Kumzari dialect
of Larak Island. Group and individual responses noted that television broadcasting with respect to Laraki is limited to occasional footage of Laraki
weddings on the regional television station out of Bandar-e Abbas. Similarly, there are no commercially produced films or audio recordings featuring Laraki, but the community makes films and CD/tape recordings of local
weddings. Respondents indicated that Laraki is absent from radio broadcasting, books and magazines, newspapers and internet sites.
73
While a grassroots movement toward use of Kumzari as a literary language exists in the Musandam Kumzari community (3.2.7), none of the respondents indicated that they were aware of this.
7.3 Language choices for media
In this section, we review language choices in media for the two dominant
languages of media on the island, Farsi and Arabic. Responses indicate that
while the consumption of Farsi-language media is the strongest, there is also
considerable use of Arabic-language media, especially for non-print media
(see the tables below).
When we asked respondents how often they watch television programs in
Farsi, 61% stated that they do this often, 31% said sometimes and 8% said
never. Levels of reported frequency for watching Arabic television programs
were lower, but still considerable: 25% stated that they do this often, 47%
sometimes, and 28% never.
Reported frequency of watching Farsi films was 53% often, 35% sometimes and 12% never. Reported frequency of watching Arabic films was
24% often, 44% sometimes and 32% never.
Reported frequency of listening to Farsi radio programs was 11% often,
51% sometimes and 37% never. Reported frequency of listening to Arabic
radio programs was 11% often, 31% sometimes and 58% never. Two of the
respondents who reported frequent listening of Arabic radio programs specified that they were listening to the recitation of the Qur‘an.11
Reported frequency of reading Farsi books and magazines was 11% often, 51% sometimes and 37% never. Reported frequency of reading Arabic
books and magazines was 0% often, 23% sometimes and 77% never.
Reported frequency of reading Farsi newspapers was 3% often, 57%
sometimes and 40% never. Reported frequency of reading Arabic newspapers was 0% often, 9% sometimes and 91% never. As one respondent noted,
Arabic newspapers are not available.
Only 31 of 35 respondents answered questions on their language choices
on the internet (recall from 7.1 that none of the respondents uses the internet
―often‖6. Of these 31 respondents, two stated that they sometimes visited
Farsi websites, and one of these two also mentioned visiting Arabic websites
sometimes.
Reported media use for Farsi and Arabic is summarized by language and
medium type in Figure 12.
11
Questions on frequency of use for Farsi and Arabic on CDs and tapes were accidentally
omitted from the Persian translation of the individual questionnaire.
74
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
often
40%
newspapers (F)
0%
books & magazines (F)
10%
0%
radio (F)
20%
10%
films (F)
30%
20%
television (F)
30%
newspapers (A)
50%
40%
books & magazines (A)
sometimes
radio (A)
60%
50%
films (A)
never
television (A)
70%
60%
Figure 12: Reported frequency for use of given media in Farsi (left) and Arabic
(right)
7.4 Aspirations for written materials in Laraki
As we mentioned above (7.2), Laraki materials are limited in media that are
audiovisual (television, films) and audio (radio, CDs and tapes). As for written media (books and magazines, newspapers and websites), Laraki materials are absent. However, respondents to the individual questionnaires
showed a high level of enthusiasm for the idea of written materials in their
language. When they were asked what kinds of things they would like to
have written in their language, respondents came up with the following suggestions:
poetry (13 respondents)
traditional stories (10)
cultural traditions (7)
dictionary (2)
history (2)
proverbs (2)
75
In addition, three respondents said that they would like everything possible to be written in their language.
When respondents were asked whether they would be willing to pay
money for books written in their language, an overwhelming majority (85%)
of the 34 respondents who answered said that they would be willing to do so,
9% said they would not be willing, and 3% did not know. Reasons for reluctance to pay for materials written in their language included not being literate, not being able to afford the books, and already knowing their own language.
76
8 Language attitudes
Here, we review the Laraki community‘s attitudes toward their own language, as well as toward other languages. The basic question here is whether
people perceive a given language variety as ―good‖. But an inextricably related issue is whether people perceive a variety as ―useful‖, since the value
of a language is often framed in terms of its usefulness: this is evident in
speakers‘ evaluations of their own language below (8.1).
This chapter is divided into three parts. First, we look at speakers‘ perceptions regarding the inherent value of their language, and its value in relation to Musandam Kumzari and other languages (8.1). Second, we consider
respondents‘ choice of optimal language for a series of activities (8.2).
Third, we appraise the languages for which subjects express a desire for
proficiency—for themselves as well as for their children (8.3).
8.1 Inherent and relative value
When we asked speakers if it is good to speak their language, 92% responded that it is, 6% replied that it is not, and 3% (i.e., 1 of 36 respondents)
stated that it has both positive and negative aspects. Reasons that respondents gave to illustrate a positive view of speaking their language fell into
five main categories:
it is our mother tongue (11 respondents)
it can be used as an in-group / secret language (6)
everyone in the community understands it (4)
it is a way of respecting and preserving a unique heritage (4)
using any language is good (2)
Subjects who held a negative view of speaking their language stated that
Farsi (and in one case, both Farsi and Arabic) was better because it was useful for communicating with people from outside the region.
We asked subjects if they could think of a situation in which it is not
good to speak their language. While 37% said that they could not think of
77
such a situation, and 6% said they didn‘t know, 57% said yes. Those who
said yes offered the following scenarios:
outside of the island / in other regions (13 respondents)
in an office / in a meeting (2)
when everyone else speaks Farsi (1)
97% of subjects said they had never been embarrassed because someone
heard them speaking in their language, and 3% said they had been.
In group interviews, respondents stated that Laraki was more beautiful
than Musandam Kumzari, since Laraki speakers do not draw their words out,
as do speakers of the language on Musandam Peninsula. They also asserted
that it is more pure since, they say, it is less mixed with other languages.
When asked which language was the most useful to know in the area
(―around here‖6, 72% specified Laraki, 17% Farsi, 3% Arabic, 3%
Laraki/Farsi, and 3% Farsi/Qeshmi; 3% said that any language would be
useful.
When we asked subjects if someone who only speaks Laraki can get a
good job, 56% said no, 33% said yes, and 11% stated that they didn‘t know.
Interpretation of these answers is complicated by the fact that additional
spontaneous comments by respondents were at variance as to whether or not
fishing, the island‘s main source of livelihood, is a good job: three respondents said there are no good jobs for people who only speak Laraki, since
only fishing is available to them; but two respondents said that yes, a good
job is available to such people, because they can fish. One respondent also
noted that a person speaking only Laraki could get a job at the island‘s water
desalination plant. Another respondent noted that good jobs are only available outside of Larak Island; in other words, even if someone living on
Larak speaks languages other than Laraki, there are no good jobs available to
them.
33% of subjects stated that they think their language is as good as Farsi,
but 61% indicated that they do not think so; 6% said they do not know.
Among subjects who think that their language is not as good as Farsi, several
referred to the wider geographical range in which Farsi may be used.
In contrast, 66% subjects stated that they think their language is as good
as Arabic, and only 28% indicated that they do not think so; 6% said they do
not know. Some subjects who think that their language is not as good as
Arabic cited the role of Arabic as a world language and as the language of
the Qur‘an.
When we asked subjects if they thought an older person would be unhappy about a younger person speaking Farsi at home, 91% said that they
78
thought an older person would not be unhappy about this, and 9% said an
older person would be unhappy. When we asked the same question in reference to Arabic, 91% said that they thought an older person would not be
unhappy about this, and only 3% said an older person would be unhappy;
6% of respondents did not know.
A summary of these responses reveals a surprising combination of attitudes:
while on the one hand Farsi and Arabic are good (and according to
some, even better than Laraki), on the other hand it is good to speak
Laraki; and
while on the one hand there are many situations where Laraki cannot
be used, on the other hand it is the most useful language for people
in the Laraki community to know.
This juxtaposition of attitudes underlines the adaptability of the language
community, which prizes Laraki for its contribution to local society, but
acknowledges the importance of other languages in the regional economy.
8.2 Optimal languages by activity
In this section, we asked subjects to specify which language is best for a
given activity. We purposely selected activities which, although they are not
necessarily language-specific, might tend to be associated with a given language because of the culture or cultures with which the activity is associated.
For enabling someone from the language group to really understand
something well, 97% of respondents said that Laraki is best, and 3% said
that Laraki/Farsi/Qeshmi is best, depending on the situation.
For talking about values, rules and beliefs, 83% indicated that Laraki is
best, and 17% stated that Farsi is best. All of the people who chose Farsi as
the best language for this were younger or middle-aged.
For talking about Now Ruz, the Persian New Year, 83% chose Laraki,
11% Farsi, 3% Qeshmi, and 3% Laraki/Farsi/Bandari. One respondent did
not state an opinion, but noted that Now Ruz is not commonly celebrated on
Larak Island.
For talking about Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, 89% considered
Laraki as the best language; 6% chose Farsi, 3% Arabic, and 3%
Laraki/Farsi/Bandari.
For poetry, 61% of respondents said that Farsi is best. 19% of respondents indicated Laraki, 6% Farsi/Arabic, 3% Arabic, 3% Farsi/Laraki, and
3% Qeshmi. 3% stated that they did not know.
79
For knowing how to read and write, 75% considered Farsi the best language. 8% chose Laraki, 6% Farsi/Laraki, 6% Arabic, and 3% Farsi/Bandari.
These results are summarized in Figure 13.12
100%
90%
% of respondents
80%
70%
other; n/a
60%
Qeshmi
50%
Arabic
40%
Farsi
30%
Laraki
20%
10%
reading and
writing
poetry
talking about
Ramadan
talking about
Now Ruz
talking about
values, rules
understanding
something
0%
Figure 13: Perceptions of optimal languages for given activities
In short, respondents see Laraki as the best language for a number of selected activities, including some for which an observer might expect a preference for other languages. The preference for Farsi in reading and writing is
easily explained by the absence of written materials in Laraki; but poetry
(primarily a sung genre) is indeed one pursuit where, because of cultural
connection to other societies, subjects see another language as optimal.13
8.3 Desired proficiency
We asked subjects what languages they wish they knew, and what languages
they want their children to know.
16 of 36 respondents stated that they wish they knew English, 11 Arabic,
4 Farsi (especially to know it better), 2 Hindi, 1 Turkish, 1 Urdu, 1 French, 1
For the purposes of this table, split answers such as ―Laraki/Farsi‖ have been given a proportional value of the percentages in the list above: 1/2 when two languages are specified, and
1/3 when three are specified.
13
The same patterns are attested for the Kumzari society of Musandam Peninsula, with the
exception that the primary language of poetry, as well as of reading and writing, is Arabic.
12
80
―Ajami‖,14 and 1 Kumzari (of Musandam Peninsula).15 4 respondents would
like to know ―all‖ languages, and 1 would like to know ―any‖ language.
22 of 36 respondents stated that they want their children to know Farsi,
15 Arabic, 10 English, 10 Laraki, 2 Qeshmi, 2 Bandari, 1 Hindi and 1 Mashhadi.16 4 respondents would like their children to know ―all‖ languages.
Putting aside complications in interpreting answers for the second question,17 the recurrent enthusiasm for knowing additional languages is remarkable, and accords well with the adaptive and profoundly multilingual nature
of the language community expressed elsewhere (6.1, 8.1).
Although English is only minimally known on the Larak Island, the frequency with which subjects mention it in this section underlines their awareness of its importance outside of the region. The same is true for subjects‘
aspirations with respect to Arabic, but possibly to a lesser degree, since so
many are already proficient in it (6.1.3).
14
See note 7 on p. 61.
In this paragraph, respondents who mentioned more than one language are listed one time
for each mentioned language.
16
See note 15.
17
Ideally, we should have asked the second question in two parts: 1) Do you want your children to know your language? and 2) What other languages do you want them to know? The
need for this distinction is evident in that only 10 of 36 respondents mentioned Laraki, even
though it is cited as the most useful language locally (8.1); the total of 22 mentions of Farsi is
also low, considering the high importance attributed to Farsi elsewhere in the interviews. It
is therefore likely that many respondents with children were imagining, as was appropriate for
the previous question, what languages they would like their children to know in addition to
the ones the children already know.
15
81
9 Language vitality and language viability
This chapter is divided into three parts. In the first section (9.1), we consider
age-related patterns that provide insight into language vitality on Larak Island. The second section (9.2) deals with perceived language viability—
speakers‘ opinions on whether the Laraki community will continue to speak
their language in the foreseeable future. In the third section (9.3), we reflect
on language viability by bringing together this study‘s findings on language
use (Chapters 6 and 7) and language attitudes (Chapter 8), as well as the
considerations of language vitality and language viability presented in earlier
sections.
9.1 Language vitality
In order to gain an understanding of the vitality of Laraki within the language community, we looked at subjects‘ assessments of a number of agerelated patterns: their use of Laraki with other adults and with children; use
of the language by their children before they attend school, and after attending primary school; young people‘s pride in their language; and whether or
not young people are abandoning the customs of their ancestors.
Responses to individual questionnaires suggest that almost all of the subjects always speak Laraki with other older and middle-aged adults. While a
few respondents speak Laraki but they also sometimes speak Farsi with other
older and middle-aged adults.
Likewise, parents consistently use the local language with their children.
Among respondents with children (two-thirds of the total of 36), 88% indicated that they always speak Laraki to their children; 8% stated that they
usually do so, and 4% stated that they do so sometimes.
Responses also showed that use of the local language is strong among
children, and it not diminished by children‘s attendance of primary school.
All 14 respondents with children younger than school age stated that these
children always use Laraki when they speak. All 13 respondents with children who have finished primary school similarly indicated that these children always use Laraki when they speak.
82
An overwhelming majority (92%) of respondents affirmed that the young
people are proud of their language; 6% thought that the young people are not
proud of their language, and 3% did not know.
Since cultural shift may be correlated to language shift, we asked respondents if they thought the young people of the community are abandoning the
customs of their ancestors. 61% considered that young people are not abandoning their ancestors‘ customs, and viewed this as positive. However, 17%
thought that the young people are indeed abandoning these customs, and
14% specified that young people are abandoning at least some of the customs. While most of these latter two groups of respondents viewed the abandonment of customs as a negative thing, one respondent said that it doesn‘t
matter. 8% stated that they don‘t know if the young people are abandoning
the customs of their ancestors.
Overall, responses indicate a high level of vitality for Laraki. It is uniformly used among adults, and adults use it when speaking to their children.
In addition, it is also consistently used by children, even after they have attended primary school. Young people are proud of their language, and although some subjects feel that young people are abandoning at least some of
the customs of their ancestors, almost all respondents affirmed the importance of these customs.
9.2 Perceived language viability
In the individual questionnaire, we invited subjects‘ perceptions on language
viability by putting forward two scenarios pointing to opposite outcomes.
First, we presented respondents with following questions: ―When the children of this village grow up and have children of their own, do you think
those children will speak your language?‖ and ―Is that good or bad?‖ 92%
responded that they thought those children would speak Laraki, and while
most saw this as a good thing, one respondent saw it as both good and bad.
Another respondent in this category foresaw that while those children would
continue to speak Laraki, it would be mixed with Farsi: this was designated
as an unfortunate outcome. 3% thought that those children would not speak
Laraki, similarly seeing this as a negative development. 6% of respondents
said that they do not know what they think will happen.
Secondly, we asked respondents if they thought that, a long time from
now, people will stop speaking Laraki and only speak Farsi; or only speak
Arabic. While 71% thought that the language will not be replaced by Farsi in
the future, 9% said that this may happen, and 9% thought that this would in
fact happen. Reasons that the latter two groups of respondents offered for
this outcome were: the world is changing; children go to school; Laraki
83
represents an old style of speaking; and Farsi is mixed with the language.
11% of respondents said that they do not know if they think that this will
happen with Farsi. Similarly for Arabic, 71% of respondents similarly
thought it would not displace Laraki in the future, but 17% thought that this
would in fact happen. 11% of respondents said that they do not know if they
think that this will happen with Arabic.
In sum, most subjects expressed confidence in the viability of Laraki for
the foreseeable future, but a significant minority recognized that the language could be threatened. Importantly, respondents from both of these
groups expressed that retaining the language is important and that, conversely, it would be a major loss if the language ceased to be spoken. Those
who felt that the language might disappear in the future were perceptive in
their identification of interrelated threats to the language: the impact of
schooling on the language, mixture with Farsi, and the way the world is
changing.
9.3 Reflections on language viability and
endangerment
Patterns of language use, and the attitudes associated with it, are crucially
linked to the viability of any language (Fishman 2001). Consequently, measures of language vitality (9.2) and perceived viability (9.3) for Laraki point
us to the underlying question: is Laraki endangered, or will speakers continue to speak it in the future? Here, we consider factors within the community (9.3.1) as well as external factors (9.3.2) and conclude that while internal factors give evidence of an uneasy equilibrium between endangerment
and vitality, external factors put the language community at risk.
9.3.1 Internal factors
As we mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, patterns of language use
(Chapters 6 and 7) and language attitudes (Chapter 8) are basic to an understanding of whether a language is viable.
In Chapter 6, we observe that there are a number of domains in which
Laraki speakers frequently interact with speakers of other languages, in some
cases more than with one another (6.2). In addition, Farsi and Arabic dominate the media, some of which are heavily used on Larak (Chapter 7). This
situation, coupled with the linguistic diversity of the regional context, has
resulted in multilingual competence among most members of the Laraki
community: most speakers are competent to some degree in three or four
languages (6.1). A recurrent theme in group and individual questionnaires is
84
adaptive multilingualism, namely that language use is dependent on the language of the person one is talking to.
Given the pervasiveness and depth of multilingualism in the Laraki
community, one might expect that the vitality of the mother tongue, Laraki,
would be compromised, and that other languages would replace it in core
domains. However, use of Laraki is vigorous in domains involving communication among speakers of Laraki (6.2). And because the community is
conservative and cohesive, Laraki continues to function as the central language of communication.
The survey of speakers‘ language attitudes presented in Chapter 8 reveals
a similar duality. Attitudes toward literary and regional languages are extremely positive, and the usefulness of these languages is readily acknowledged. Still, there is no sense of inferiority with respect to the mother
tongue: attitudes toward Laraki are equally positive.
Our assessment of language vitality suggests that there is little or no ageor education-related decline in use of Laraki, nor is there significant weakening of positive attitudes toward the language among young people (9.1).
Most respondents expressed confidence in the viability of Laraki for the
foreseeable future, but a significant minority recognized that the language
could be threatened. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the importance of the
language as a symbol of the Laraki community (9.2): this, in itself, helps to
explain the language‘s persistent vitality in the face of threats from its multilingual context.
In sum, while the regional context puts significant pressure on Laraki, it
appears to be counterbalanced by vigorous use of the language rooted in
identity of the Laraki community itself.
9.3.2 External factors
Up to this point, we have reflected on the profile of the Laraki community,
where language vitality remains strong in the face of sociolinguistic factors
that threaten the language. However, it is possible that the most significant
threat to the viability of Laraki is in fact external to the community and its
responses to the social context.
The inhabitants of Larak have become increasingly cut off from the rest
of the Kumzari language group (4.3.2, 4.3.4). Subsistence is tenuous on the
barren island (4.2), and fishing stocks in the Gulf, as elsewhere, are being
depleted. Although the Iranian government addresses the basic need for water and provides electricity, the islanders‘ formerly lucrative cross-border
trade with countries on the other side of the Gulf (4.3.1, Najmabadi 1992)
has diminished and there is little economic incentive for the community to
85
remain on the island (8.1). Still, almost as if part of the landscape, the Laraki
community persists.
Larak Island has the fortune, or misfortune, of a strategic location in the
Strait of Hormuz. The wealth that passes through the Strait renders the area
both economically and politically important. As in centuries past (4.3.3), the
area is susceptible to social upheaval. The collapse of the population on
nearby Hengam Island under the final Shah‘s administration (4.3.4) and the
more recent abandonment of Larak-e Kuhi and Mowrona on Larak Island
itself (4.3.1, 4.3.4) underline the fragility of the Laraki-speaking community.
And because the population is so small, numbering less than a thousand individuals (4.3.1), any relocation would be disastrous to the language‘s viability, since its very existence is tied to the isolation that the island offers.
Factors beyond the Larak-speaking community‘s control, then, put the
very existence of this language community at risk. Of course, it benefits the
national government to preserve a civilian population on the island, since it
strengthens the legitimacy of their sovereignty over it. But even more importantly, in continuing to do so, the government will demonstrate its commitment to its own linguistic and cultural riches, in which Larak‘s community
of adaptive multilinguals constitutes a unique and valuable element.
86
10 Conclusion
In this study, we have provided a sociolinguistic overview of the Larakispeaking community of Larak Island. Along with an overview of the
Kumzari language as a whole and the Laraki language community in particular, we have defined the Kumzari language and its varieties, and examined
patterns of language use, attitudes and vitality.
While a lexicostatistical comparison of Laraki with Musandam Kumzari
reveals a high degree of lexical similarity, recorded text tests (RTTs) reveal
that intelligibility of Musandam Kumzari to speakers of Laraki is marginal.
Taking linguistic considerations and speakers‘ perceptions into account, we
conclude nonetheless that Laraki and Musandam Kumzari should be considered dialects of a single language, Kumzari.
In our investigation of language use, a striking pattern of adaptive multilingualism emerges according to domains of use and limitations in the proficiency of the audiences. Although language use is vigorous in domestic and
traditional work-related domains, and speakers‘ attitudes toward their language are overwhelmingly positive, the small size of the language community and the history of social upheaval in the region places the community at
risk.
87
Appendix 1: Group sociolinguistic questionnaire
The purpose and methodology of the group sociolinguistic questionnaire is
discussed in 2.4.1, and the population sample involved as respondents is
described in 4.5.1.
Here, we provide the English template for the questionnaire along with an
English translation of responses to the questionnaire. In some cases, the responses do not directly address the question, and some responses to a given
question are found with other questions. While questions and answers are
aligned in the main text of the study, we have chosen here to follow the flow
of the interview as it transpired.
The Persian questionnaire, which we used on the field, is reproduced on
p. 100.
English template with a translation of group responses
Language situation
1. What do you call your local language? Rārakī.
2. What do other people call your local language? (specify who)
Lārakī (people from Qeshm and Bandari people), Ahl Lārak
(Omanis), Ahl Rōruk (people from Khasab), Kumzārī (people from
the Emirates), Rārakī (Kumzāris). Everyone thinks that our language is Farsi, and that it is closest to Farsi, but we think it’s closer
to Arabic. We think our language came from Kumzar, and not that it
came from here and spread to Kumzar, because there are more
people on the Arabian side of the Gulf who speak the language than
here.
88
3. What do you call your ethnic group?
For the most part, they are Arab and Khasabi, but also come
from places like Qeshm, Gachin and other places. Also, for example,
from Saudi Arabia, Qada, Kumzar, and Mukhi. And the people from
Kumzar are partly Balochi. But for the most part, Laraki people are
Arab.
4. What do other people call your ethnic group? (specify who)
We haven’t heard so many things, but they say that we came from
the Lar area, because Larak means little Lar, so they mean that we
came from Lar in the south of Fars Province.
5. What do think of these names?
Because the name of the island is Larak, our language came to
be called Laraki, and we think that it’s better to call it that than to
call it Kumzari. The name Larak doesn’t mean anything in particular. We don’t know what the name Kumzari means, either. Originally, the name of the language was Kumzari. But then the people that
migrated here gave it the name Laraki. The roots of this language
have been taken from several languages like Portuguese, English,
Arabic and Farsi. The language is derived from all of these languages. I don’t know which words from these languages are in Laraki. Older people have mentioned words like glass, door, lits (lamp)
from these languages. The Portuguese were here and their graveyard is here, on top of that high mountain over there.
6. What are the origins of your group? Where did your group come
from? When?
My exact origins are assāwi (an Arab settlement). My ancestors
came to Qeshm, and from there came to Larak. Most of the people
here came from Khasab and Kumzar. I don’t know exactly what period they came in: 300 or 400 or 500 years ago.
7. If you came here from somewhere else, did other parts of your group
stay somewhere else, or go somewhere else? Which ones, and where
are they now?
After coming to Larak, some of our tribe went to the Emirates
and some to Khasab. When they’re there, they speak both Laraki
89
and Arabic. In the Mowrona area [on Larak], people there spoke the
Kuhi language, and those people, who left Larak, are bilingual in
Kuhi, which is a kind of Arabic, and Laraki.
8. Does everyone in your town speak the same language?
Some speak Kuhi (Arabic) among themselves, and some of them
speak Laraki with us, especially some of the younger people. The old
ones among them can’t speak Laraki. Qeshmi, which is a kind of
Farsi, is spoken by some of the young people in the town. The old
people speak Arabic. We understand their language completely, and
we can answer them and understand their answers.
9. If not, what other languages are spoken here?
There are workers in a desalination plant here and an electricitygenerating station as well as teachers. There are about 100 of them.
Some are Bandari, so that’s what they speak and some are Farsi so
they speak Farsi. With Bandari, Qeshmi and Hormuzi people, who
all speak the same language, we speak Bandari, and with the rest we
speak Farsi.
10. In total, how many people speak your local language?
In total, there are about 500 or 600 people on Larak, of whom
100 are not locals. Five or six households are Kuhi [Arabic speakers].
11. Where is your language spoken? [Use a detailed map and ask about
neighbouring settlements starting from the nearest ones, until you
reach areas where the language is not spoken, or where people do
not know the names of the settlements. If the settlement speaks the
language exactly the same as where you are, circle its name. If it is
the same language spoken a bit differently, circle it and give the
name of the variety, if any, and differences in the way the people
there talk. If it is different language, underline the settlement name
and write the name of its language beside it. If several languages are
spoken in a settlement, box its name and list all the language varieties there. Each time you do this, note the date, and which settlement
you were gathering the data in.]
90
There is no language that is closely related to ours. Even Qeshmi, which isn’t very far from here, is completely different than our
language. Only Kumzari is close. Bandari and Farsi aren’t close either. Kurdish has a few similar words. My father is Kurdish and my
mother is Laraki.
a. Are there other settlements far from here that speak your language or dialect?
No. Laraki isn’t spoken on any other island.
b. Are there other settlements speaking the same dialect or language
as you that have other names for your language? What do
they call it? n/a
c. What do they call themselves (as an ethnic group)? n/a
d. Where is your language spoken the best? If someone wanted to
learn your language, what would the best place be for them
to live?
The Laraki people that went to the Emirates: while they don’t mix
Farsi with their language, they mix Arabic with it. The old men here
speak Laraki more purely than the old men in the Emirates, because
those in the Emirates mix Arabic with it. Laraki is purer than Kumzari because Kumzari has incorporated more Farsi [means Arabic?]
words than Laraki has. Laraki is more pure than Farsi. Laraki and
Kumzari are the same but those in Kumzar draw their words out.
Laraki is more beautiful. Those who left and went to the Emirates
and Khasab, they mix it with Arabic, but the language spoken here is
pure Laraki.
12. Are there many individuals or families who speak your language
who are from the language area but now live in other towns and cities? How many? Where are they?
Two of the men from here moved to Qeshm to get married and
they stayed there. Their children speak Qeshmi but the men speak
Laraki with us and Qeshmi with their children. There is also a man
who married a woman from Hormuz, and he speaks Hormuzi with
Hormuzi people but Laraki with us.
91
One Hormuzi person came here seven or eight years ago to live
and now both he and his children speak Laraki. One Abadani person
came here (because of the Iran/Iraq war) and he speaks Laraki too.
Three or four ladies from Larak have married men from Qeshm and
Rudan and Oman.
Language use
13. What language variety do people from your group use most often:
a. at home? Laraki.
b. with friends of the same age? Laraki.
c. when fishing? Laraki.
d. at the local market? [there is no local market]
e. at the market in Qeshm?
With people from Qeshm, we speak Qeshmi, but if there are two
Laraki people, they will speak Laraki together. With Farsi people,
we speak Farsi.
f. at the market in Bandar-e Abbas? Bandari.
g. at the mosque?
For do‘¸ (spontaneous prayer), we use Arabic but if a person
doesn’t know Arabic, they use Laraki. Some people pray in Farsi
too. Group do‘¸ prayer is in Arabic.
h. at the local clinic?
People speak Arabic, and it gets translated into Farsi. Because
the medical personnel here is Qeshmi you have to speak Farsi to
him/her. For those who speak Farsi, you have to speak Farsi to
them.
i. when playing together (children)?
Laraki, but Farsi with Farsi children.
j. at school (teacher)?
When teaching, the teacher speaks Farsi, but it’s mixed with
Bandari. At break time, the teachers speak Bandari. One of the Ban92
dari teachers whose mother is Laraki and who has gone to Holland,
speaks Laraki.
k. at school (students)?
In class, students speak Laraki together, and with the teacher,
Farsi. On school grounds they also speak Farsi with the teacher.
14. Are students allowed to speak your local language in school?
They are free to do so. Because most of the teachers are from this
province [Hormozgan], they’re not very strict about it.
15. Are they allowed to speak your local language during breaks at
school? Yes.
16. Do young people here speak your local language exactly the same as
you speak it? No.
17. [If not] What are they differences?
They mix Farsi and Bandari with it.
18. Do you think your local language will still be spoken when:
a. the young children of this settlement get married?
If both people are Laraki, then yes, they will remember the language. But if they marry someone who isn’t Laraki, they will speak
the language of whomever they marry.
b. these children are old?
It depends on the language of the people they speak to. I myself
am Laraki, but I speak Qeshmi with my wife because she’s Qeshmi.
But I speak Laraki with our children. My wife doesn’t speak Laraki
because she’s afraid of making mistakes when she speaks Laraki;
it’s not that Laraki is a bad language.
Migration, marriage and education
19. Do many men from here marry women who are not Laraki? Yes.
20. Where are these women from?
93
Qeshm, Rudān [near Minab on the Iranian mainland], and Hormuz. Men from here don’t marry Arabs because they need a passport, and the price is very high for Arab women.
21. Do many women from here marry men who are not Kumzari?
Not many, about three or four.
22. Where are these men from? Hormuz, Shiraz.
23. Are there certain groups with which you don‘t intermarry?
There are no clans here, everyone is the same and we regard
people equally.
24. Where do most of the notables (important or well-placed) people
from this community live?
(no answer).
25. Are most of your children in school?
Most are in school, and it goes up to year five (the end of primary
school).
26. Where are the following schools located:
a. primary school: Larak
b. secondary school: Hormuz
c. nearest college: Bandar-e Abbas
d. nearest university: Hormuz (private university) and Bandar-e Abbas (national university)
27. Do most of your children go to secondary school? Yes.
28. What age do most people continue their education until?
To the third year of elementary school (rāhnemā’i) and a few go
on to high school in Hormuz.
29. What do most children to when they are finished school?
Only fishing, because there’s no other employment to be had.
30. Are there students from elsewhere who come to school here?
94
Apart from one Hormuzi household, there aren’t any other families living here with school-age children.
31. Are there many strangers who visit here?
Not many. Most of the tourists who come do so around Now Ruz
(Persian New Year).
32. Who are they? How numerous are they?
From the north of Iran, and from Shiraz, for recreation and hiking. A few days ago about 50 people, students and climbers, came
from Bandar-e Abbas, and stayed for two nights.
33. Are there many strangers who live here?
Non-locals number about 50 people.
34. Who are they? How numerous are they?
They are just soldiers, workers at the electricity agency, and the
Sepah (Islamic Revolutionary Guard). Of these, only three or four
have households here; they are originally from Hormuz, and their
children go to school here.
Media
Television
35. Are there TV programs broadcast in your local language?
□ Yes No
36. Approximately how many hours of TV programs are there in the local language?
None □ Daily ___ hours or □ Weekly ___ hours
37. How similar is the language of these TV programs to your local
language? n/a
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
95
38. In these TV programs, for which of the following is the local
language used? n/a
□ Speech □ Songs □ Poetry
39. Please tell us the names of TV programs broadcasted in or on the
topic of your local language: n/a
40. On which channel are these TV programs broadcasted? n/a
Radio
41. Are there radio programs broadcast in your local language?
□ Yes No
42. Approximately how many hours of radio programs in the local
language are there?
None □ Daily ___ hours or □ Weekly___
43. How similar is the language of these radio programs to your local
language? n/a
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is more mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
44. In these radio programs for which of the following is the local
language used? n/a
□ Speech □ Songs □ Poetry
45. Please tell us the names of radio programs broadcasted in or on the
topic of your local language: n/a
46. On which frequency can you receive these radio programs? n/a
Films
47. Approximately how many films are there recorded in your local
language?
None □ 1 □ 2-5 □ 6-20
□ 21-50 □ more than 50
48. How similar is the language of these films to your local language?
n/a
96
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
49. Please tell us the names of films published in your local language or
on the topic of your community: n/a
50. Who made them? n/a
51. Who are the artists? n/a
Tapes and CDs
52. Approximately how many tapes and CDs are there recorded in your
local language? n/a
None □ 1 □ 2-5 □ 6-20
□ 21-50 □ more than 50
Comment: In our wedding rituals, we sing in Arabic and Farsi.
In our mourning rituals when someone dies, there is only one local
song that we sing, and it is in Kumzari. Young people here prefer the
jubilant Bandari and Farsi songs and enjoy pop and rap music.
53. How similar is the language of these tapes and CDs to your local
language? n/a
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
54. Please tell us the names of tapes and CDs that are recorded in your
local language: n/a
55. Who made them? n/a
56. Who are the artists? n/a
Newspapers
57. Approximately how many newspapers are published in your local
language?
None □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ more than 3
58. How similar is the language of these newspapers to your local
language? n/a
97
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
59. What are the newspapers called that are published in or on the topic
of your local language? n/a
60. Who publishes these newspapers? n/a
Books and magazines
61. Approximately how many books and magazines are there written in
your local language?
None □ 1 □ 2-5 □ 6-20
□ 21-50 □ more than 50
62. How similar is the language of these books and magazines to your
local language? n/a
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some are similar, and some are mixed with Farsi
63. Please tell us the names of books and magazines published in or on
the topic of your local language: n/a
64. Who are the writers of books and magazines published in or on the
topic of your local language: n/a
Internet
65. Approximately how many internet sites are there written in your
local language?
None □ 1 □ 2-5 □ 6-20
□ 21-50 □ more than 50
66. How similar is the language of these internet sites to your local
language? n/a
□ It is similar to my local language
□ It is mixed with Farsi
□ Some is similar, and some is mixed with Farsi
98
67. Please tell us the names of internet sites written in or on the topic of
your local language: n/a
68. What is the web address? n/a
69. Who wrote them? n/a
Relation between Laraki and neighbouring varieties
70. In which other villages or cities do people speak like you do? [First
let the respondents answer and check off the places they say. Then
ask about the remaining places and check them off if the answer is
positive.]
Larak (lower)
□ Kharg¸n (Balochi6
□ Larak (upper6
□ Chabahar
□ Larak (Shihuh6
□ Bandar-e Abbas
□ Qeshm (Qeshmi6
□ Bushehr
□ Qeshm (Arabic6
□ Shiraz
□ Hormuz
□ Tehran
Kumzar
□ ___________
□ Khasab
□ ___________
□ Minab
□ ___________
□ ___________
□ ___________
[The following three questions only apply to those places which you
have marked in the last question. Write the appropriate number for
each question on the line next to the place name.]
a. How is the language of this place compared to your language?
Is it…
- the same (3)
- similar (2)
- a bit similar (1)
- not at all similar (0)
b. How much do the people around here understand of the
language of this place?
99
- all of it (3)
- a lot (2)
- some (1)
- none (0)
c. In what way is the language spoken in this place different to
your language?
- there are no differences (3)
- some of the words (2)
- most of the words (1)
- all of the words (0)
Outside of here, only in Kumzar do they speak like we do, and
even there some of the words they use are different than those in our
language. We understand the Kumzari language for the most part,
although we don’t understand the younger people as well. There`s
nowhere else in Iran where they speak like we do. Kumzari is similar
to our language.
Some Bandari, Qeshmi and Hormuzi people understand our
words, but they can’t speak our language. In any case, there’s not
relation between their language and ours.
Kumzari people from Oman understand us perfectly. The
difference between our language and Kumzari is limited to some
words that they’ve borrowed from Arabic. For example, we say
kuppa for football, and they say kurra. They draw their words out,
but we don’t.
We understand Qeshmi better than we understand Hormuzi or
Bandari. But we can understand Hormuzi and Bandari as well.
Which of these places do you understand the people from best?
Kumzar.
Persian questionnaire
بام قعيت
ي ي ؟
(ي
100
ي چ ف
6 ؟
ي
چ
چ
یخ
يگ
ف-
-
چ ژ
خ
يگ
ف-
خ
-ي
ت
-گ
ی يگی
يگ
يف ی ی
چ ژ
فت
يف ی ی
ي
ي چ ف
يف
چي ت ؟
آ
ي
يف
ي
ی
ي ،آي
آ
؟ چ
يف
ی؟
ی يگ
ی
،ي
؟
-آي
ت ی
يی يگ
،چ
ي ،چ
- 1
ی
تگ
تگ
ي
ف
يت
ت ی
؟ 6
ي
ی
ت،
آ
،ي
آ
تگ خ
تگ چ
آ
ي
ي
تف
ي
ط
تف
ي
ت
(
6
ي ي .گ
ط
آ
ت،
ي
آ
تطي ی
ی
ي ،ت يخ
،ي ف
تگ
ی
آ گ
ی
تف تی
ت ی
آ
ي
آ
ي ً
تگ
ي
تف
ي ي.
تف
ت ي
آ خ
ت
ي
تف
ي .گ
،
تف ت ی
ی
.گ
آ خ
تف ت،
؟
پ
يی
آ
تف
ی
ت ی
پژ
ي ت ي
ف
؟
؟
-
ي
؟ 6
ي(
چي ت ؟
ي
-گ
ي ؟
گ
ي ي .گ
ی
ي
ی
آ ی
ت ي (.
ف -آي
-آي
ت ی يگ ی
ي
ت ی يگ ی
چ
؟ آ
چ
خ-
ي
یآ
ی
ی
ت
101
ی
ت ی
؟ چ آ
ي
ی ي ی
ي
ی تف تی
ی
ق ي(
ت ی
ت
-آي ف
ت
؟
؟ 6گ
ت
ي خ
ي گ ي
؟
ط
گي ،ت ي
ت
يگ ی
ت
ت
ت ی
گی
ی
ت
گی
؟ چ ت
؟ گ
ت؟
ي ت ق
؟
ی
ی
ت
؟
كارب د با
يف
فف-
گ
غ
ی
ی
؟
ت
-
ي
؟
؟
يگي ی ؟
گ
؟
-
؟
ق
؟
-
-
؟
(
6ي6 -
ی
ی
؟
گ
ي یگ
(
6-
؟
؟
آ
؟
(
-آي
آ
یت
-آي
آ
یت
-آي
ي
6-گ
( تف ت
-آي ف
ی ي
ف -چ
چ
-ي
ی؟
6ا (
چت
ی
ی تف
گ ی تف ي
ی تف
قي ً
ی
؟
خ
؟
؟
ت ی
چي ت ؟
ی
ي
چ
تف
ط
پي ی
قی
ی
:
؟
؟
م اج ت،ا د اج تحصيل
-آي
ی ي
ي ی
- 1ي
-آي
ی
ت ؟
ی ي
ي ی
ي -آي
ی ي ت
ی
؟
ی ي ت
ی
ی
؟
ت ؟
يف خ
ف -آي ي ت چ
ی
6
آ
ي
ی
اي( ي
ی
ت
ت ی ي ؟
گی ی
؟
؟
102
ي
-
:
ق
ف -ت يی ؟
يی ؟
-
يت ي
؟
-
يت ي
گ ؟
آي ي ت چ-ت چ
ی
يی ی
ی ي ت ف
ت
-
ي
چ
يی
- 1آي چ
-آي ف
غي
-چ
ی
-آي ف
غي
-چ
ی
ی
چ
ی
ق يگ
ی ي
ي
ي
ت ؟ ت
ی ي ی
ت ؟ ت
؟
ی
ت
؟
ي
غ
ی
ی
فت آ
؟
؟
؟
چ
ت؟
ي
گی ی
چ
ت؟
؟
رسانهها
تل ي ي
-آي
یت ي ي ی ی
ف -ی
یت ي ي ی
ت
.....
يچ
يی
يي
یآ ي ت
ی
ف-
پ
ی
ي ،فت ی .....
ی
یت ي ي ی
؟
ت
ت؟
چ
ت.
ت.
ی
ي
ي
ی ف
ت،
ی ت ي ي ي،
-آ گ
ي
طف ًي
یآ ي ت
ی
ت.
ي
ی
ي
پ
ی
ی
ي
ي
آ پ
؟
رادي
آي103
ی
ي يی ی
؟
-
یت ي ي ی
- 1
ی
ت
ي
ی
ف-
پ
-خي
-ت ي ًچ
ف-
ی
؟
ی
پ
؟
گ يي .
-خي
ف -ی
-ت ي ًچ
ت
ی
.....
يچ
يف-
يی
ي
یآ ي ت
فی
-
ی
ي ،فت ی .....
ی
ی
ي يی
ت
ت؟
چ
ت.
ت.
ي
ی
ی
ي
ف-
ی
ت
ي
ی
ي يی
پ
؟
ي
ت،
ي يي،
-آ گ
-طف ً
ی
-ي
ی ف
یآ ي ت
ی
ي
ت.
ي
؟
ی
ی
ي يی
يی
چ ف
آ پ
ي
گ يي .
ی
ي فت ی ي ؟
فيلمها
ت ي ً چ فييچ
ی
ي
ي ت ي ت پ
يف-
ي ت
يی
ی
-ف
یآ ي ت
ی
-
ت ي ت
پ
ي في
ي
ض
ت پ
؟
ی
ت؟
چ
ت.
ت.
ی
ي
-طف ً
ی ف
ت،
ي ی يی
یآ ي ت
ی
ت.
ي
ت
آ ض
گ يي .
- 1
-
گ
يگ
آ
چ
ی
ت ؟
آ
چ
ی
ت ؟
كاستها سیدیها
ت ي چيچ
ت
ی ی
ي
ت پ
ي ت ي ت پ
يف-
ي ت
يی
ي
ی
/
ی
ي
؟
ض
ت ي ت
پ
ی ی
ی
چ
ت؟
ت.
104
-ف
یآ ي ت
ی
-
ت.
ی
ي
-طف
ی ف
ت،
یآ ي ت
ی ی يی
ت.
ي
ی
ت
آ ض
گ يي .
گ
-پ ي آ
چ
آ
آ
گ
ی
چ
ت ؟
ی
ت ؟
ر نامهها
-ت ي ًچ
ی
يچ
ی
ي
يف-
ي ت
يی
ي
ي
ی
-ف
یآ ي ت
ی
-
ی
ت؟
چ
ت.
ت.
ي
آ
ت
؟
ی
ت،
يی
ی ف
ی
یآ ي ت
ي
ت.
آ
ي
ت
ي
،چ
؟ 6
چي ت؟(
- 1کی آ
ت؟
ت
كتاب ا مجات
-ت ي ًچ
ی
ت
ي
يچ
ي ت ي ت پ
يف-
يی
یآ ي ت
-
ي
ی
فی
ت
پ
ی
ات
ت؟
چ
ت.
ت.
ي
-طف ً
ت ي ت
ي ت
ي
ت
ت پ
؟
ی
ت
ت،
اتی
ی ف
یآ ي ت
ی
ت.
ي
ت
آ
ت
گ يي .
ي
ی
105
گ
ت ؟
ت
ي
اتی
ی
ي
آ
ت
ت ،چ
اينت نت
-ت ي ًچ
يت ي ت تی
يچ
ی
ت پ
ي
ي ت ي ت پ
يف-
يی
ی
ي
ف-
یآ ي ت
ی
ت ي ت
ي ت
ي
پ
يت ی ي ت تی
ی ف
ت،
يت ی ي ت تی
آ-چ
ی ي
چ
ت.
ي
ي
ی
ت؟
ت.
ی
-طف ً
؟
یآ ي ت
ی
يت
ي
ت.
آ
گ يي .
ت
ت؟
يت
؟
ی
ارکی با هایه سايه
ي
- 1
ف-
ت ی يگ ف
ي
ي
ت ي
چگ
؟
ت؟
( 6
ت
( 6
( 6
ی
تف ت (16
-ف
ی
ی
ي
ت چ
ت
ي
ی
؟
( 6
ي ( 6
ی( 6
اً (16
ي
-
چ
يچ تف تی
ی
ي ت
تف ت ت ؟
( 6
ت( 6
ت( 6
ت (16
ي
ي
ی
ت
ت
ی
ي ؟
106
Appendix 2: Individual sociolinguistic questionnaire
The purpose and methodology of the individual sociolinguistic questionnaire
is discussed in 2.4.1, and the population sample involved as respondents is
described in 4.5.2.
Here, we provide the English template for the questionnaire, and the Persian questionnaire which we used on the field follows (see p. 115). Answers
to the questionnaire are discussed throughout this study in the relevant sections.
English template
Respondent background
1. Born in: _______________________
2. Lives now in: _______________________
3. Mother tongue / native dialect: ____________________
4. Lived in the following places for more than a year [Important: write
the number of years next to each location]:
______________________________________________________
5. Father comes from: _______________________
6. Mother comes from: _______________________
7. In what language or dialect did your father talk to you when you
were a child?
8. In what language or dialect did your mother talk to you when you
were a child?
9. Gender:
□ male
□ female
107
10. Age:
□ 9 – 24
□ 25 – 49
□ 50 +
11. Education:
□ non-literate
□ school
□ university
Language use
12. Do you speak to your children in your local language?
always
most times
sometimes
never
13. Do you speak to adults in your local language?
always
most times
sometimes
never
14. Do you have children that are too young to go to school?
yes
no
15. [If yes] Do they use your language when they speak?
always
most times
sometimes
never
16. Do you have children that have finished primary school?
yes
no
17. [If yes] Do they use your local language when they speak?
always
most times
sometimes
never
18. Which languages or dialects can you understand?
Farsi ____
Arabic ____
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
19. How well can you understand each of these? [Write the appropriate
number next to the language name in the previous question: 3-very
good, 2-good, 1-a little, 0-not at all]
20. Which languages or dialects can you speak?
Farsi ____
Arabic ____
_______________, ___
108
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
21. How well can you speak each of these? [Write the appropriate number next to the language name in the previous question: 3-very good,
2-good, 1-a little, 0-not at all]
22. Which languages or dialects can you read?
Farsi ____
Arabic ____
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
23. How well can you read each of these? [Write the appropriate number
next to the language name in the previous question: 3-very good, 2good, 1-a little, 0-not at all]
24. Which languages or dialects can you write?
Farsi ____
Arabic ____
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
_______________, ___
25. How well can you write each of these? [Write the appropriate number next to the language name in the previous question: 3-very good,
2-good, 1-a little, 0-not at all]
26. What language do you use most when you talk with an old
man/woman?
27. What language do you use most when you talk with a young
man/woman?
28. What language do you use most when you talk with a boy/girl?
29. What language do you argue in the most?
30. What language do you use most when you want to recount the stories of your ancestors?
31. What language do you usually count in?
32. What language do you usually pray in at home?
33. What language do you use most when you talk about council/local
government matters?
34. In which language are most of the songs which you learned from
your father or mother?
35. In what language do you usually talk when you are in the mosque?
36. What language do you usually use when you are working with other
people [outdoors], for example, in the garden or fishing?
109
37. What language do you use most when you chat with your friends?
38. What language is used most in your home?
39. What language do you use most at the local market?
40. What language do you use most at the local clinic?
41. What language did you learn first/second/third?
Language attitudes
42. If you really want someone from your language group to understand
something well, what language do you think should be used?
43. What language is best for talking about values, rules and beliefs?
44. What language is best to use when you want to talk about No Ruz?
45. What language is best to use when you want to talk about the month
of Ramadan?
46. What language is best to use for poetry?
47. What language is it best to know how to read and write in?
48. What languages do you wish you knew?
49. What languages do you want your children to know?
50. Do you think your language is as good a language as Farsi? As good
as Arabic?
51. If there were books in your language, would you be willing to pay
some money to buy them? What kind of books would you like?
52. Are books in Farsi easy to read? Books in Arabic?
53. A long time from now, do you think people will stop speaking your
language and only speak Farsi? Only Arabic?
54. If a young person speaks Farsi at home, would an old person be unhappy about it?
55. If a young person speaks Arabic at home, would an old person be
unhappy about it?
56. Are the young people abandoning the customs of your ancestors?
57. Do you think this is good or bad?
58. Are the young people proud of your language?
110
59. When the children of this village grow up and have children of their
own, do you think those children will speak your language?
60. Is that good or bad?
61. Is it good to speak your language? Why?
62. Could someone who speaks only your language get a good job?
63. What language is best to use when you want to talk about funerals?
64. Would you ever use Farsi at a funeral? Arabic?
65. Can you think of a situation in which it is not good to use your language?
66. Were you ever embarrassed because someone heard you speaking in
your language?
67. What is the most useful language to know around here?
68. Is it more important for boys or for girls to learn Farsi? Arabic?
69. What are the advantages for boys?
70. What are the advantages for girls?
71. Do people respect someone who speaks Farsi more than someone
who doesn‘t speak it? Someone who speaks Arabic?
72. If you lost your identity card and 200 000 tuman in the village market, and a speaker of your language found it, would he/she return it?
73. And if it were a Farsi speaker, would he/she return it? If it were an
Arabic speaker?
74. Would you mind if your son or daughter marries someone who cannot speak your language or dialect but only Farsi?
75. Someone who spoke only Arabic?
76. Why or why not?
77. Have you ever seen anything written in your language?
78. Do you think it would be nice to be able to read and write your language?
79. What kinds of things would you like to have written in your language? (e.g.: proverbs, folktales, traditional stories?)
80. Are there any villages far away from here where people speak the
same language as you?
111
81. Do other villages where your language is spoken have different
names for your language?
82. What do they call the language?
83. What do they call themselves?
84. Where is your language spoken best?
85. Why is it spoken best there?
86. For learning to speak your language, what is the best village to live
in?
Media
87. Which of the following do you use often?
□ TV
□ Radio
□ Films
□ Tapes and CDs
□ Internet
□ Newspapers
□ Books and Magazines
Television
88. Are there TV programs broadcast in your local language?
□ Yes □ No
89. How often do you watch TV programs recorded in your local
language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
90. How often do you watch Farsi TV programs?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
91. How often do you watch Arabic TV programs?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
Radio
92. Are there radio programs broadcast in your local language?
□ Yes □ No
93. How often do you listen to radio programs recorded in your local
language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
112
94. How often do you listen to Farsi radio programs?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
95. How often do you listen to Arabic radio programs?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
Films
96. Approximately how many films are there recorded in your local
language?
□ None □ 1
□ 2-5
□ 6-20
□ 21-50
□ more than 50
97. How often do you watch films recorded in your local language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
98. How often do you watch Farsi films?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
99. How often do you watch Arabic films?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
Tapes & CDs
100. Approximately how many tapes and CDs are there recorded in
your local language?
□ None □ 1
□ 2-5
□ 6-20
□ 21-50
□ more than 50
101. How often do you listen to tapes and CDs recorded in your local
language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
102. How often do you read Farsi books and magazines?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
103. How often do you read Arabic books and magazines?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
113
Newspapers
104. Approximately how many newspapers are published in your local
language?
□ None □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ more than 3
105. How often do you read newspapers which are written in your local
language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
106. How often do you read Farsi newspapers?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
107. How often do you read Arabic newspapers?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
Books & magazines
108. Approximately how many books and magazines are there written
in your local language?
□ None □ 1
□ 2-5
□ 6-20
□ 21-50
□ more than 50
109. How often do you read books and magazines which are written in
your local language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
110. How often do you read Farsi books and magazines?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
111. How often do you read Arabic books and magazines?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
Internet
112. Approximately how many internet sites are there written in your
local language?
□ None □ 1
□ 2-5
□ 6-20
□ 21-50
□ more than 50
113. How often do you visit internet sites written in your local
language?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
114
114. How often do you visit Farsi internet sites?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
115. How often do you visit Arabic internet sites?
□ Often □ Sometimes □ Never
116. Please tell us the names of internet sites written in or on the topic
of your local language: _________________________________
117. What is the web address? _____________________________
118. Who wrote them? _________________________________
Persian questionnaire
دهندپاسخ
: ت
تآ
:
ت6 ي
گی
آ
-
:ت ف ی
-
:ی
-
ي
ي
يی
:( ي ي
: يت پ
-
يت
-
:
؟
ت ی
يی
ي
؟
ت ی
يی
ي
چ
ي پ
چ
ي
-
ي
چ
ي
-
:يت
-
:
- 1
چ
+ 1
- 1
ی
ی
-
غي
ي
:يات
ت-
باكارب د
ت ی ي ؟
گ
ی قت
ت ی ي ؟
گ
ی
ت
قت
یخ
ی قت
قت
ف
آي-
ي ت
ي
گ ا
آي-
ي ت
ي
115
-آي ف
ی
ي
6 -گ
( آي
گ
ي
-آي ف
ی
6 -گ
( آي
ت
تف
ي ت
قت
ی قت
ی
ط
ي ت
ف
؟
گ
ي
خي
ت يی
ی ------
گ
ت
ت
قت
ی قت
ي
ی
؟
تف
ت
؟
ی
ی
؟
گ
ي ؟
ی ------
------------ ----، ------------
----،
------------ ----،
----،
------------ ----، ------------چ
یت ي آ
ي ي
- 1
ف
ت
ي ؟ 6
- ،خ
خي ی خي
ق ی
ی -1
- ،
ی ------
یت ي آ
ف
------------ ----، ------------
----،
------------ ----،
----،
ت ي ؟ 6
- ،خ
خي ی خي
ق ی
- ،
یت ي
ی ------
ی -1
ی ------
ي ي
یت ي آ
-خي ی خ
ف
ي ؟ 6
- ،خ
ي
------------ ----، ----------------------- ----،
----،
ی
ا(
------------ ----، ------------
----،
------------ ----،
----،
------------ ----، -----------چي ي
ي ي ؟ 6
- ،خ
-خي ی خ
-گ ی
ي پي
-گ ی
ي
/
-گ ی
ي
خت /پ
-گ ی
/
ق ی
- ،
ي
ي ي ؟
ی ------
یت ي آ
ا(
----،
ی -1
یت ي
ی ------
ی
ق ی
- ،
ي
ي ؟
------------ ----، ------------چ
ی
ا(
------------ ----، -----------ي ي
ي
ت ی ي ؟
ی ------
-چ
خي
ی -1
ي
ی
ا(
ت ی ي ي ت
تف
ت ی ي ي ت
تف
ت ی ي ي ت
ی ي ي ت
چ
ی ي ؟
تف
ی تف
ی ي ؟
ی ي ؟
ی ي ؟
116
یخ
- 1گ ي
ي ي
گ-
ت
چ
خ
گ
گيی
ئ
ي
پ
قتیي
-گ ی
چ
-
ي ت
-
گ
- 1
-
ی تف
اً
تي
غ ی
ي
ي
ی
ی ي ؟
؟
ی ي ؟
ی تف
/
ت ؟
ف يت
ی تف
ی تف
/
ت ی ي ؟
ت ی ي ؟
غ
چ
چ
چ
ی ي ؟
ت ی ي ؟
تت
چ
ی
اً
ی
ی
ي ت
چ
يگ
گ گپ گفتگخ
ي ی ي ت
چ
ی
خ
اً چ
يگي ي،
چ
ی ي ت
تف
ت ي گ فتي
تي
ی
ی ي ؟
ي
ت
-
ق ي ت يف ي آ
ی تف
چ
ی ي ؟
ی ي ؟
ي گ فتي ؟
نظ های با
يی
گتف
خ
-
ی
ی يت
ت
گ -گ
ي
،ق ي
-ت ي
یخ
ت
تي
-یخ
ي ف
-گ
ت
یف
ت
؟
ي
؟ 6
یخ
ی خ
ی؟
ت
ي ؟
ف
چپ ی
ت
تف
ت؟
؟
خ ی
ي
ت
ت
ت؟
ت
ی ي
-آي ت
117
يي
تف
ت؟
ت؟
ی
ط ی
ت
ت ي
ت؟
ت
ت ي
-ت ي
- 1ف
ت ي
ي
ی
-
ف
چ
؟
ي
-
ط ی
خ ی تف ي
ی ي
ی
ی
خ ی
یخ ي آ
ت ،ض
ت ت؟ ت
ي
؟
يگ
ي
ی چط
ی
ي ؟
؟
ي چ
ت
( ..... ،
ی
ی چط
؟
ت
ت
ف
ی
-گ ف
خ
خ
-گ ف
خ
خ
-آي
ی
ت
آي ف
خ
ت ی
؟
ف
ی
ت
آي ف
خ
ت ی
؟
ت ی
ی ي
-ف
یخ
تي
ي خ
فت
آي -قتی چ
ی
گ
تخ
ک
- 1آي ي ک خ
-آي
ي
ف
؟
ی
؟
؟
يک
چ
خ
فک
،آي
چ
يک ي آ
؟
؟
تک
ت؟ چ ؟
خ
تک
آي ک ی ک ف -قتی
یخ
ت في
يت
ي
غ خ ی
تآ
تکي ک
؟
ت
تف
تت
کي
؟
-آي
ت في
ت ک
-آي
يت ي
-آي
يک ک ی
ی
-آي ي گي ی ف
ی
چ- 1چ
ي ئی
ی خت
ي
ت
ک ت
پي
آ
تک
ک ف
ی
ک یکچ ي چ -آي ت ک
ی
ت
ت
،آي آ
ی
،آي آ
پ
ي
ي
ی
گ پ
ي خت
ف
ی
ت یک
ت يک چط
ي ت ی يگ
؟
ک یک
ت
؟
ک چ ي
پ
ت گ یک ي
؟ گ يک
ک یک
چط
يت
يک
؟
ي گ ي
ک ؟
؟
؟
چي ی ي
فک
ی چط
ت يک چط
ی
ی
ت؟
ت يک
؟
ی
-آي
ت؟
پ
يی 11
يک
-گ يک ف
ي ؟
؟
ت یک ؟ ک یک
-گ
خ
؟
یک یک ف
ی
آ
؟
ت يک ي ت ک
فک
ی خت
ي يی
-آي
ت
ت
یپ
-آي
کي ک
ک
ی چط
تف
ت
-في ت ي
ف
ف
ق يتی
ی تف
ي ؟
؟
يک ي خ
ي ک
ت
ت
؟
خ
ت؟
118
-چ چي
ت
يی
ي
ق ی
ی،
ی
تی ؟(
- 1آي
ت ی يگ ی
ي
ت
-آي
ت
ت
ی يگ ی ک
؟ 6ض
ک
،
ف
ي گ ي
ي گ ي
ی
تک
ی تف تی
ت یک
؟
ی
؟
-آ
یآ
چ
چ
خ-
ی
ی
؟
ت
ک
-چ آ
ت ي
ت
؟
ت ی
گ ک یک
؟
؟
تک
گي
ي
ت
،ت ي
ی
گی ک
ت؟
رسانهها
-ک
يک
ي
( 6
( 6ت ي ي
( 6يت ت
غ
ي
يک ي ؟
تف
( 6في
( 6
( 6
( 6کت
ی ی
ات
تل ي ي
ی ت ي ي ی
-آي
ي گ ي
ک
؟ ( 6
پ
( 6خي
چ ( 6غ
- 1چ
( 6غ
چ ( 6غ
یت ي ي ی
قت يک
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
( 6
قت يک
یت
گ
یت ي ي یف
( 6گ ی قت
ی
( 6
( 6
يک ي ؟
ت
گ
یت ي ي ی
( 6گ ی قت
ت
يک ي ؟
ت
ی
يک ي ؟
گ
رادي
آيچ ( 6غ
119
ی
ي ئی
قت يک
ک
ی
( 6گ ی قت
پ
ي ئی
( 6
؟ ( 6
یت گ
گ
( 6خي
ي ي ؟
قت يک
چ ( 6غ
ی
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
چ ( 6غ
ي يی ف
( 6
گ
ی
ي يی
( 6گ ی قت
ي ي ؟
یگ
یگ
( 6
ي ي ؟
گ
فيلمها
-ت ي چ في ض
ی
( 6يچ
( 6
- ( 6
-چ
قت يک
في
( 6غ
- 1( 6
ی
یت
( 6گ ی قت
-چ
قت يک
( 6غ
في
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
چ ( 6غ
ی
( 6گ ی قت
1-
1
( 6ي ت
يک ي ؟
گ
یت
( 6
( 6
ت
( 6
یف
في
؟
يک ي ؟
گ
يک ي ؟
یت
گ
( 6
كاستها سیدیها
- 11ت ي چ ت
( يچ
( 6
- 1چ
- ( 6
- 1چ
( 6
( 6ي ت
1-
ی ی یض
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
يت
- 1( 6
قت يک
( 6غ
( 6
ی یض
؟
( 6
کت
1
ي ي ؟
یت گ
گ
ی ي
ات ف
( 6گ ی قت
ي ؟ ( 6غ
گ
- 1چ
( 6غ
قت يک
کت
(6گ ی قت
ات
( 6
ی
ي
ي ؟
گ
ر نامهها
- 1ت ي چ ت
( 6يچی
- 1چ
( 6غ
- 1چ
( 6غ
( 6
ی
( 6
قت يک
( 6گ ی قت
( 6
( 6ي ت
يی ک
( 6
قت يک
( 6گ ی قت
چپ ی
یت
ت
ي
ي
ي ؟
گ
یف
( 6
؟
ی ي
ي ؟
گ
120
- 1چ
( 6غ
قت يک
ی
( 6
( 6گ ی قت
ی ي
ي ؟
گ
كتاب ا مجات
- 1ت ي چ ت
( 6يچی
( 6
- 1چ
قت يک
( 6غ
1
-چ
( 6غ
چ ( 6غ
ی
کت
( 6
-
( 6
کت
ات
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
( 6
کت
( 6ي ت
یت
ی ي
یخ ي ؟
ي ؟
گ
ات
( 6گ ی قت
- 1( 6
1
گ
( 6
کت
ت
ت
ات ف
( 6گ ی قت
قت يک
1-
ت؟
( 6
ي
ی
ي ؟
گ
اينت نت
يت ي ت ت
ت ي چ ( 6يچی ( 6
چ ( 6غ
چ ( 6غ
چ ( 6غ
قت يک
قت يک
قت يک
-آ
-چ ک یآ
121
( 6
( 6
يت ي ت ت ک
ت؟
ت
ت؟
ي ي ؟
یت
ی تف
يک ي ؟
گ
يت ی
( 6گ ی قت
يت چ
( 6
( 6ي ت
گ
يت ی ي ت ت ف
( 6گ ی قت
-طف
- 1( 6
- 1( 6
يت ی ي ت ت
( 6گ ی قت
چ
ی
- ( 6
؟
ی تف
يک ي ؟
گ
ی
ت
ت
گ ئي ؟
1
Appendix 3: Wordlists
The template for the following wordlists, which contains 240 items, is based
on Anonby (2003). It contains the Swadesh 100-word list as a subset; these
words are underlined in the English column.
Wordlists are given here in five varieties: English, Persian, Laraki, Musandam Kumzari and Arabic. While the English template is given in standard orthography, Persian and Arabic lists are in phonological orthography.
The Laraki and Musandam Kumzari wordlists are transcribed in the provisional phonological orthographies used by researchers on these varieties
(Anonby, Anonby van der Wal, Mohebbi Bahmani; see the transcription
conventions on p. 14 and the lists of researchers in 3.1 and 4.1). Word stress,
which is predictable in Laraki and Musandam Kumzari, is for these varieties
penultimate in the lexical items in the lists which have more than one syllable.
As in the Swadesh list, English verbs are given in the infinitive. Persian
verbs, however, are given in third person singular past (/preterite/perfective)
in order to accommodate comparison with Kumzari and Arabic, where there
is no infinitive citation form.
Details on the purpose and methodology of the wordlist are found in 2.4.2
above, and the Laraki population sample from whom the list was elicited is
discussed in 4.5.3. Lexical similarity between varieties is summarized in 5.3.
122
English
Persian
Laraki
Kumzari
Arabic
(Modern
(Farsi, Modern
(Larak Island,
(Musandam
(Modern
Standard)
Standard)
Iran)
Kumzari of
Standard)
Kumzar and
Khasab,
Oman)
1.
sar,
ra’s
head
sar
sar
2.
hair
mu
mū
mū
ša r
3.
eye
češm
čum
čum
ayn
4.
nose
nuxrit
nuxrit
’anf
5.
ear
guš
gōš
gōš
’u un
6.
mouth
dahān,
law,
dahan
kāra
kāra
fam
dnān
dnān
sinn
wān
lisān
bini,
damāğ
7.
tooth
dandān
8.
tongue
zabān
wān
neck
gardan
gardin
throat
golu
māraq
muxx
gardan,
9.
raqēbit
(nape)
māraq,
10.
xanaqa
(inside)
unq,
raqaba(t)
alq,
anjara(t)
123
dist,
11.
arm
dast,
bāzu (upper)
bōğal
bōğal /
bağal
(upper)
irā
12.
hand
dast
dist
dist
yad
13.
finger
angošt
linkit
linkit
’i ba
14.
nail
nāxon
nixn
nixn
ufr
15.
stomach
(belly)
šekam
’iškum
škum
ba n
16.
navel
nāf
nāwağ
nāwağ
surra(t)
17.
back
pošt
kāmar
kāmar
18.
leg
pā
pā
pā
rijl
19.
knee
zānu
rukbit
rukbit
rukba(t)
20.
foot
pā
pā
pā
qadam
21.
skin
pust
pōst / pō
22.
bone
ostoxān
xār
xār
23.
blood
xun
xwaym
xwēm
dam
24.
urine
edrār,
gmē ,
šāš
šāš
gmē ’āw /
mē ’āw
bawl
124
pōst / pō ,
jild
ahr
jild
a m
25.
heart
26.
liver
27.
del,
dil
dil
qalb
jegar
jōğir
jōğar
kabd
person
ādam
’ādimī
’ādimī
šax
28.
man
mard
mark
martkē /
markē
rajul
29.
woman
zan
30.
child
31.
father
32.
ğalb
bača,
ank
ankē
’imra’a(t)
rōr
rōr
pedar
bap
bap
mother
mādar
mām
mām
33.
brother
barādar
brār
brār
’ax
34.
sister
xāhar
xwē
xwē
’uxt
35.
uncle
(maternal)
dāi
xālū
xālō
xāl
36.
name
nām
nām
’ism
37.
chief (tribal)
xān
38.
dog
sag
sōğ
sağ
kalb
39.
goat
boz
gōsin
gōsin
ma za(t)
bačča
esm,
nām
kadxōda,
ākim
šēx
ifl
’ab,
wālid
’umm,
wālida(t)
šayx,
ra’īs
125
40.
chicken
morğ
mrū
mrū
dajāja(t)
41.
ox, bovine
(cow-bull)
gāv
gā
baqara
(cow, ox)
baqara(t)
42.
horn (cow)
šāx
qarn
qarn
qarn
43.
tail
dom
dūm
dūm
44.
claw
nāxon
nixn
45.
feather
par
par
par
rīša(t)
46.
camel
šotor
jēmal
jāmal
jamal
47.
lion
šir (hayvān)
šīr
’āsad
’asad
48.
snake
mār
mār
mār
49.
fish
māhi
mīhī
mēy
samaka(t)
50.
bird
parande
ēr
ēr
ayr
gīrağ
namla(t)
51.
gīrağ
(small),
nixn,
maxlab
anab,
ayl
mixlab
ayya(t),
’af an
ant
murče
52.
spider
ankabut
jōlağ
’abū šayban
ankabūt
53.
scorpion
ağrab
’aqrab
’aqrab
aqrab
126
sumsum
(large)
54.
louse
šepeš
šiš
qar’a
qamla(t)
55.
tree
deraxt
šajara
šidrit
šajara(t)
56.
branch
šāxe
šağnit /
šuğnit
šāxit / šāxi
far
57.
leaf
barg
warq
warq šidrit
waraqa(t)
58.
bark
pusteye
deraxt
pōst / pō
faqqaš
qišr
59.
root
riše
’irq
’urq
ji r
60.
flower
gol
ward
zahra(t)
abb,
bizra(t),
gul,
ward
bazr,
61.
seed
dāne,
barr
toxm
barr,
ba ra(t),
badrit
abba(t)
ušb,
62.
grass
alaf
giya
63.
sky
āsemān
’āsmēnō
64.
cloud
abr
nim
num
sa āba(t)
65.
sun
āftāb
’intāfō
’intaf
šams
66.
moon
māh
mahtāwō
mētaw
qamar
67.
night
šab
šaw
šaw
layla(t)
68.
star
setāre
stārg /
’istārg
stārg
najma(t)
giya
’āsmēnō,
sāmā’ō
ašīš
samā’
127
69.
wind
bād
70.
dirt, earth
(material)
xāk
mountain,
hill
kuh,
71.
72.
tape
kawl
rēğ / rīğ,
sabaxa
kō
sang,
rock (large,
e.g., 1m)
xāre,
sand
māse,
šen
rī
gil
turāb
kō
jabal
bard,
bard
saxre
73.
kawl
rēğ / rīğ
čāfō,
rāqa
(boulder)
axra(t)
jīrī
raml
ġubār
ēsū
74.
dust
gard (xāk)
ğbār
ğbār
75.
pebble
rig
tā ab jirjar
rēğ
76.
water
āb
hāw
’āw
mā’
77.
dew
šabnam
nīdī
nīdī
all
78.
rain
bārān
bāram
bāram
ma ar
79.
river (course)
rudxāne
fēlaj
wījī
80.
fire
āteš
hātiš
’ātiš
81.
smoke
dud
dūr
ash
xākestar
xāraštīn
82.
128
dūr,
dixx
xārištin
a ā(t)
nahr,
wād
nār,
arīq
duxān
ramād
ām,
year
sāl
sāl
sāl
84.
summer
tābestān
hāmīn
’āmin
85.
winter
zemestān
dimistan /
imistan
dimistan
šitā’
qaryit
qarya(t)
83.
deh,
86.
village
rustā,
ābādi
87.
plain
88.
path
89.
house
dašt,
sahrā
91.
rubbish
(piece)
ārit
qāyit
jādde,
rasta,
rāh
jadda (new)
xāne
90.
bed
qarya,
taxt
āšğāl
92.
qā’it / qāyit
sana(t)
ayf
sahl,
wa ’
tēra
sabīl
xānağ
xānağ
bayt
sēyam,
kurfāyē,
karpāya /
kurpāya
sēyam,
jumā’at
sarīr
sērir
wā ax /
wāsax,
nufāy(t),
xmām
’awsāx
kiswit
(general),
zabāla(t),
clothing
(piece)
lebās
xātī (men‘s
robe)
93.
saddle
zin
xōrjīn
surj
sarj
94.
pot (metal)
dig
qu ’an
qu ’an
’a ī
xātī (men‘s
robe)
malbas
129
gōšt,
95.
meat
gušt
gošt
96.
salt (eating)
namak
xwā
xwā
97.
oil, grease
rawğan
rōwin
rōwn / rōwin
98.
egg (e.g.,
chicken)
toxme morğ
xāyg
xāyg
99.
milk
šir (nušidan)
šīr
šīr
100. hungry
gorosne
gišnağ
gišnāğ
101. thirsty
tišne
čahnağ
čēnağ
a šān
ban
ban
abl
an
an
adīd
čakkū
kārd
sikkīn
la m
la m
mil
zayt,
samn
bay a(t)
alīb
jū ān
tanāb,
102.
rope
rismān,
band
103. iron (metal)
104. knife
āhan
čāğu,
kārd
jang,
105.
war
106. one
jang
yek
jang
walm
(quarrel)
arb
yak (list),
yak (list),
wā id,
tā (modifier)
tā (modifier)
’a ad
dō (list),
107.
two
130
do
dita
dita
(modifier)
’iθnān
sō (list),
108.
three
se
sita
sita
(modifier)
θalāθa(t)
čār (list),
109.
four
čahār
čārta
čārta
(modifier)
’arba a(t)
panj (list),
110.
five
panj
panjta
panjta
(modifier)
xamsa(t)
šaš (list),
111.
six
šeš
šašta
šašta
(modifier)
sitta(t)
’aft (list),
112.
seven
haft
hafta / afta
’afta
(modifier)
sab a(t)
’ašt (list),
113.
eight
hašt
hašta / ašta
’ašta
(modifier)
θamānya(t)
na’ (list),
114.
nine
noh
nahta
na’ta
(modifier)
tis a(t)
da’ (list),
115.
ten
dah
dahta
da’ta
(modifier)
ašara(t)
yā da (list),
116.
eleven
yāzdah
yā ata
yā data
(modifier)
’a ad ašar
bīs (list),
117.
twenty
bist
bīsta
bīsta
(modifier)
išrūn
131
a (list),
118.
one hundred
119. much, many
120. little
(amount)
121. all
sad
xayli,
ziyād
kam
hame,
kolli
122.
good
xub
atta
xaylē
handak
hammū
jwān
a a
(modifier)
xaylē,
xaykē
’andak,
kam
’ammū
jwān,
māl
mi’a(t)
kaθīr
qalīl
kull,
jamī
xayr,
ayyib,
zayn
sayyi’,
123.
bad
bad
banj
banj
lā xayr,
lā zayn
124. old (thing)
125. new
126. hot (fire)
127. cold
128. tall
129. short
(height)
132
kahnağ
ka’nağ
nō
nō
garm
garm
sard
sard
sard
bārid
boland,
drā ,
ğadboland
bland
drā
awīl
kōta
qa īr
kohne
naw,
jedid
dāğ,
garm
kutāh,
ğadkutāh
kōta
atīq
jadīd
ārr,
āmin
derāz,
drā ,
boland
bland
kutāh
132. heavy
drā
awīl
kōta
kōta
qa īr
sangin
sangī /
sangīn
sangī
θaqīl
133. light
sabok
swōk
swuk / sōk
xafīf
134. full
por
palla
palla
malī’
135. empty
xāli
xālī
xālī
136. clean
tamiz
pāk
pāk
130. long (thing)
131.
short
(length)
’illit,
137.
dirty
kasif
xays
ritt,
xays
xālin,
fāriġ
na īf
muttasix,
wasix
šārar,
138.
’išk (driedout and
hard)
xošk
hišk
139. big
bozorg
gap
gap
kabīr
140. small
kuček
čikk
čikk
aġīr
141. round
gerd
dawwārī
142. green
sabz
saw
143. yellow
zard
ard
dry
aw it
saw / aw
ard
jāff
mudawwar
’ax ar
’a far
133
144. red
ğermez,
sorx
sirx
sirx / irx
’a mar
145. black
siyāh
siya
siya
’aswad
146. white
sefid
’ispēr
spēr
’abya
raft
raft
raft
148. come
āmad
hāmad
’āmad
jā’
149. arrive
resid
rēsid
rēsid
wa al
147.
leave (3rd
singular
past/perfective)
tarak
saydiš xō,
150.
get up, stand
151. sit
boland šod
nešast
152.
lie down
derāz kešid
rāfā wāwut,
qāyim wāwut
ništ
xwānidiš
xwō,
madda xwu
gudiš
saydiš xu
bālā,
saydiš xu
qāyim
ništ
kardīdiš xō
153. fall
oftād
kaft
kaft
154. walk
ğadam zad
mēš gudiš
mēš gidiš
134
ahab,
qām,
waqaf
qa ad,
jalas
’istalqā
waqa ,
saqa
mašā
adā,
155.
run
david
burwad
burwad
raka ,
jarā
156. swim
157. fly (bird)
šenā kard
parid,
parvāz kard
’išnāw gudiš
šnāw gidiš
pārid
pōrid
158. see
did
mēšidiš
159. hear
šenid
’išnaftiš
buid
šamma gudiš
160.
smell (a
scent)
161.
mēšidiš,
jīriš
šnawdiš,
šnuftiš
’arf gidiš
ād (intransitive),
saba ,
ām
ār
ra’ā
sami
šamm
zāid
ād
162. die
mord
murd
murd
māt
163. sleep
xābid
xwaft
xwaft
nām
164. blow (on)
fut kard
’uff gudiš
165. whistle (with
mouth)
sut zad,
aw awa
gudiš
give birth
sut kard
ādiš
(transitive)
nafaxa gidiš,
’uff gidiš
afara gidiš
walad
nafax
afar
166. swell
motavarem
šod
paydam
gudiš
paydam
wābur
waram
167. suck (finger)
mekid
ma a gudiš
ma a gidiš
ma
135
tafala gidiš,
168.
tof andāxt
tuf gudiš
169. cough
sorfe kard
qu
170. vomit
estefrāğ kard
rēšad
171. bark (dog)
pārs kard
bite
(animals)
spit
172.
173. eat
174. drink
u gudiš
xū ik
kardīdiš
qu
u gidiš,
ba aq,
lafa
ka
,
sa’ala gidiš
sa al
rēšad,
taqayya’,
rēšid
qa af
wa wa a
gudiš
naba a gidiš
naba
gāz gereft
xāridiš
xāyidiš
xord
xwōdiš
xōdiš
xord,
nušid
šaraba gudiš
xōdiš,
šaraba gidiš
a
’akal
šarib
175. want
xāst
wātidiš
wātidiš
’arād
176. fear
tarsid
tarsid
tursid /
tursīdiš
xāf
177. know
(something)
dānest,
dānidiš
dānidiš
178. think
fekr kard
179.
count
balad bud
šemord
fakara gudiš
’išmāridiš
fakara gidiš,
gaftiš ba xō
šmāridiš /
’išmāridiš ,
araf
fakkar
add
’adda gidiš
180. suffer, have
pain (body)
136
dar gidiš,
dard kard
dar gudiš
’adaba
wābur
’alim,
ta a
ab
181. laugh
xandid,
xande kard
xēnid
xandiš
giryad
guryad
(intransitive),
182.
cry
gerye kard
a ik
bakā
guryādiš
(transitive)
183. say
184. ask
185.
goft
porsid,
soāl kard
gaftiš
swāl gudiš
āvāz xānd
qawala
gudiš
186. dance
raxsid
187. play (child)
188. give
sing
189.
show
gaftiš
wāl gidiš
qāl
sa’al
ğanna gidiš,
qawala
wābur
ġannā
čēmaki gudiš
bā gidiš
raqa
bāzi kard
bā gudiš /
bā ī gudiš
bā ī gidiš
la ib
dād
dādiš
dāriš
’a ā
nešān dād
bar a /
par a gudiš
mēšidiš
ba…,
’a har
jīriš ba…
190. send
ferestād
fānidiš
fāndiš
’arsal
191. buy
xarid
xēridiš
xēridiš
’ištarā
raf xāna
tazawwaj
raf xāna,
192.
marry
ezdevāj kard
an gudiš
(man‘s
action)
137
193.
fight
walm gidiš
(quarrel),
ārab
jangid
gudan angar
194. kill
košt
kištiš
195. steal
dozdid
196. take
gereft
gudiš
gidiš
197. bring
āvard
wādiš
wādiš
198. look for
josteju kard
jištiš
jištiš
ba aθ an
paydā kard
bar a /
par a y
gudiš
jīriš
wajad
199.
find
īdiš,
īnu gudiš
čīk y dādiš,
200.
push
201. pull
kištiš
qatal
īdiš
saraq
sanna dāriš,
hol dād
dafraka y
dādiš
čīk y dādiš
kešid
kēšidiš
kēšidiš
bastiš,
202.
tie
bast
’aqaba y
gudiš
203. hit
zad
b ardiš
204. cut (wood)
borid
qa a y
gudiš
138
jang gidiš
(war)
’axa ,
šāl
jalab,
’addā
dafa
jarr
bastiš,
abnīdiš,
raba ,
’aqaba y
gidiš
aqad
b andiš,
arab,
’ōkidiš
’a āb
qa a gidiš,
qa a ,
batta gidiš
falaq
qašara gidiš
(scrape),
205.
scrape
xārānd
akka y
gudiš
šarmaxa /
šamraxa
gidiš
(scratch),
xāridiš
(scratch,
itch),
xarbaš,
kaša
akka gidiš
(scratch,
itch)
206. press
fešār dād
’a a gudiš
’a a gidiš
aġa
207. wash (thing)
šost
čištiš
čištiš / šištiš
ġasal
208. burn
suxt
ababa y
gudiš
araqa gidiš
araq
209. throw
andāxt
arra y gudiš
arra gidiš,
fāndiš
ramā
brē idiš,
210.
pour
rixt
abba y
gudiš
ča a gidiš
(large
amount),
kabba gidiš
(large
amount)
sakab,
abb
dafana gidiš,
211.
bury
(person)
dafn kard
dakka y
gudiš
kandiš,
dakka gidiš,
dafan
gēr gidiš
(person)
139
212. hide (thing)
ğāem kard
qāyim y
gudiš
’ēnidiš,
’axfā,
nakara gidiš
xaba’
kār gidiš,
213.
work
kār kard
kār gudiš
dāmu gidiš
(employment)
amil
’amšīdiš,
214.
sweep
215. weave
(carpet)
jāru kard
bāft
maštiš
ōfnu gudiš
216.
zerāat kard,
cultivate
kāšt,
kāšidiš
kešt
pāk gidiš
(clean)
suffu gidiš
(palm
leaves)
kāšid
(intransitive),
kāšidiš
(transitive),
kanas
nasaj
fala
ara’a gidiš
217. cook
poxt,
dorost kard
wus y gudiš
abaxa gidiš
218. this
in
’iyyi
yā
219. that
ān
’ān
’ān
220. here
injā
221. near
nazdik
222. there
ānjā
140
’ēwū,
’ējgā
nē īk
’ānjgā,
’ānsū
abax
hā a,
hā ihi
hā a,
hā ihi
’ēsū / ’ē’ū
hunā
nē ik
qarīb
’ānsū / āntē
hunāk
223. far
dur
dūr
dūr
ba īd
224. (to the) right
daste rāst
rāst
rāstī
yamīn
225. (to the) left
daste čap
čap
’asrē
yasār
226.
not
227. now
na
al’ān,
hālā
lā (for
verbs),
na
na
sātē
sātē
’al’ān
dūšin
’ams
nwā
ġad
228. yesterday
diruz
dūšīn
229. tomorrow
fardā
ābi ī
mā (for
nouns)
giyā,
230.
where
231. when
kojā
kay,
če vaxt
kāmsū,
gya,
gyā
kāramsū /
kāramtē
kay
kay
čābē,
’ayn
lamma,
matā
232. how
četawr
čābē
233.
ki,
kiyā,
če kasi
kēā
či,
čī,
čēā,
mā,
če
či
či
mā ā
who
234. what
čāb
kayf
kiyā,
kēā,
man
ki
141
235. I
236. you (sg.6
(thou)
man
mē
mē
’anta (male),
to
tō
tō
237.
he/she
238. we
u
’iyyi
yē
mā
mō
mā
239.
you (pl.)
240.
they
142
’ana
šomā
išān
’išmā
’ānšīnan,
ša
šmā
’anti
(female)
huwa
(male),
hiya
(female)
na nu
’antum
(male),
’antunna
(female)
hum (male),
šan
hunna
(female)
Appendix 4: RTT materials
The purpose and methodology of the RTT (recorded text test) is discussed in
2.4.3, and the population sample involved as respondents is described in
4.5.4. The results of the tests are provided in 5.4 as part of the discussion of
intelligibility between dialects.
Here, we first provide the subject background questionnaire, which was
used to ensure that the Laraki population sample had minimal exposure to
Musandam Kumzari.
This is followed by the four texts used in the test (see 2.4.3), two in Laraki (p. 144), and two in Musandam Kumzari (p. 147). For each of the texts,
we also list the questions that we asked respondents. An English translation
accompanies each text.
Subject background questionnaire
1. Born in: _______________________
2. Grew up in: _______________________
3. Lives now in: _______________________
4. Mother tongue / native dialect: ____________________
5. Lived in the following places for more than a year [Important: write
the number of years next to each location]:
______________________________________________________
6. Father comes from: _______________________
7. Mother comes from: _______________________
8. In what language or dialect did your father talk to you when you
were a child?
9. In what language or dialect did your mother talk to you when you
were a child?
143
10. Gender:
□ male
□ female
11. Age:
□ 9 – 25
□ 25 – 50
□ 50 +
12. Education:
□ non-literate
□ school
□ university
Laraki texts
Laraki practice text
dūšīn, paštīn, xwuftum, as sēkal māzadī tay ba mē.a raqqada wāwudum
pa xwaw dgōum, či wāwustē?b saydum xwu hāmadum darbačēō wākudum.c
English translation of Laraki practice text
Yesterday, in the later afternoon when I was sleeping, the sound of many
motorcycles came to me.a Startled from sleep, I said, ―What has happened?‖b
I got up, came to the window and opened it.c
Questions on Laraki practice text
a) ān či assi šnēwidiš?
What did that person hear?
b) či dgōā?
What did he say?
c) puštu saysi xwō, či gusē?
After he got up, what did he do?
Laraki main text (used as a control)
tā rōz, mu inna qu m darasa tkīm,a hawōō xubbē, ya’nī, xaylē…inča rēğ
pārastin, inča hawōō xubbē.b išna pēyda na.
u puštu tā tā’īm pa qu m, tā’īm rārak, nixa rādē pis xāla mē.c ay
hāmadīm mē u pis xāla mē u pis xālu mē u…dikēs zankanan.
ay hāmadīm pa qu m, tā tā’īm rārak, u harči sā’at mēš tkīm, tērōō rub’i
sā’atē, mu harči mēš tkīm, iši trēsīm na ba jāgēē na, harči mēš tkīm, trēsim
na.
sā w xāni sā’at xwu tkīm, dita sā’at, sita sā’at raftē. ay puštu dānidīm
bayē ki atman ba sēb raftīm burxat, tērōō rub’i sā’at, mu sā dita sita sā’at
inna tērōōīm. ay raftim burxat.d as harči čīm išina trēsīm na. išina ham pē
pēyda na, išna ham pē u sā pīšīnan,e u išna pī na xwōrīm na inna rādēō na.f
144
ay sā pē zanka gudin yē ba grē!g tā rōkō ham guiš yē ba grē. ay puštū pē,
harči raftīm, raftīm, binzīya mu ham pē nī iyar tōa!h
raftīm, rēsidīm tā jāgēē, tā lančē jīdīm.i raftīm mēka lančō, gaftīm ba yē,
ya’nī, ēsū kāmsūē?j puštu dgōa…gaīm ba y rārak, w kāmbār? dgōa rārak w
ēbār, inna ēba ham si masa jilm kilāyē, w ēbārē išma. dgīm ba yē ay sā či
kīīm?! dgōa brē w ēba. dgīm ba yē binzīya ham iyār. masalan mu rōra wa
mu inna rādēō išna xwōsin na, gišnağin, inča…ay puštū pē naqqa nān
dādin ba mu, hāw dādin ba mō u…pē āyil naqqa dādin, mu sōdīm inna
binzīya xwō.
pē hāmadīm, hāmadīm, raftīm atta jilm hurmuz. ay raftīm sā naqqa kō
hurmuz pēyda wāwud. pē swāl gudīm gaīm rārak w kāmbārē? pē hāmadīm.
sā hāmadīm ba čāfō yi’ō: ādīmī nī dugrāin, nī tōktin xwō: mu raftīm
burxat, immu xwō pē ya, inča ka masalan…a a dikrāī īn mu guiš masalan
mu hāmadīm wēlat xwō. inča ka na išna pē ya sardar āla gusīm jilm kilāyē.
xa ā .
English translation of Laraki main text
One day, we were in Qeshm studying,a the weather was stormy, you know,
very…dirt was flying around, the weather was stormy like this. b Nothing
was visible.
Later, we wanted to come from Qeshm and come to Larak in my my
maternal aunt‘s son‘s motorboat.c So we went, I and my maternal aunt‘s son
and my maternal uncle‘s son and…there were two women.
So we came from Qeshm, we wanted to come to Larak, but however
many hours we travelled, for a fifteen-minute trip, however much we went,
we didn‘t get anywhere, however much we went, we didn‘t get anywhere.
Now when we looked at our watches, two hours, three hours had gone by.
So then we knew from this that we must have gotten lost, it was a fifteenminute trip, and now for two, three hours we had been on the way. So we
had gotten lost.d Indeed however much we went we didn‘t get anywhere.
Nothing was visible either, nothing, and now it was early afternoon,e and
there was nothing for us to eat in the motorboat.f And then the ladies started
crying!g One guy started crying too. Still, however much we went and
went…our petrol was nearly finished!h
We went on, we reached one place, we saw a dhow.i We went up to the
dhow, we said to him, you know, ―Where is this?‖j Then he said…we said to
him, ―Larak—which direction is it?‖ He said, ―Larak is this direction, this
direction is, well, over by Kilaye too, and you are in this direction.‖ We said
to him, ―So now what are we to do?‖ He said, ―Go in this direction.‖ We
said, ―Our petrol is finished, too. Actually, we have young people with us in
the boat who haven‘t eaten anything, they‘re hungry, it‘s like this….‖ So
145
after this they gave a bit of bread to us, they gave water to us…and they even
gave a bit of oil to us, we put it into our own petrol.
Still we came and came, we went all the way to over by Hormuz. And we
went on and then a bit of the mountains of Hormuz appeared. Still we asked,
saying ―Where is Larak?‖ And still we came.
When we came to the shore, oh! People were about to cry, they were
about to start beating themselves! We had gotten lost, it was we ourselves,
just like this, you know…twice God responded to us, you know, we came to
our own community. It was just like this when it happened that we went up
over by Kilaye. That‘s all.
Questions on Laraki main text
a) či gusin inna qu m?
What were they doing in Qeshm?
b) čābē hāwōō?
What was the weather like?
c) nēxa rādē kiya?
Whose motorboat was it?
d) či wāwud ba šan?
What had happened to them?
e) sā’at či ğāyaa?
What time was it now?
f) ay či wāwusti ba šan inna rādēō xōrin?
What did they have with them in the boat to eat?
g) zanka či gusin?
What did the women do?
h) pē či maškilti hāmasin ba šan?
What new problem came up?
i)
či jīsin?
What did they see?
j)
či gafti ba lančō?
What did they say to the [people in the] boat?
146
Musandam Kumzari texts
Musandam Kumzari practice text
qabaywā saydum xō, tamnā, awwa daqqiti ābil. sūrin. saydum xō la ma x
čištum warra warrītī.a u labasa gudum, raftum inda siyyārtō.b raftum a sūrō,
tamna xaba a. xaba a ābyō.c qawala tī’in, dām čāb dgī’in.
English translation of Musandam Kumzari practice text
A little while ago I got up, and oh!, the sound of a drum beating. It was a
wedding. I got up and washed myself quickly.a And I got dressed, I went in a
car.b I went to the wedding, and oh! there was shuffling. Shuffling of the Abi
dance.c They were singing, I don‘t know what they were saying.
Questions on Musandam Kumzari practice text
a) wa saydiš xu pi xwāwā či gidiš?
What did he do when he got up?
b) ra ba sūra naxa čēā?
What did he go to the wedding in?
c) či bā ī bā tkin ba sūran?
What dance were they dancing at the wedding?
Musandam Kumzari main text (used to test intelligibility of Musandam
Kumzari to Laraki speakers)
bārē, sūri inda kum ar.a nwāšamīyā, dgīn ba mā, kawla bār tō’a.b
ma āmidim xā ab, ādimī a ama’in wā ma ē’ū. ab a būrim pi āba ā,
tamna kawla bār.c u āmidin na wā ma nā, u iš wā ma rādē’ē na. balya
būrim.d sā čāb kim? sā iš wā ma rādē’ē brim kum ar pi xā ab na!
tamna dgīn ba mā rādē’ē inda xōr nēt čōt kum ar. rādi qawm ēli ēd.
talafōn gidim a šan, dgīn ba ma raftim jārī!e ilmhum, pištu rāyi gidim mi u
nādir, dgī’im rādē umrō īm, yi u siyyārit yē. čim xōr nēt, čim kum ar!
raftim. rēsidim xōr nētā, tamnā, qawm āla ma arr āsū’in. dgīn ba ma
brē nā, kawla bār ba y xaylē.f ilmhum ma gidim xō ba qawyit xō, raftim.
raftim, raftim, raftim, rēsidim ğubbit še a. kawla bār ba y xaylē! dgīm sā bra
kamala y tkim. raftim. rēsidim a kāra la yuwā, tamna kawla bār ba y xaylē,
ōfanin xaylē. ilmhum dgōm a nādir, ma čim, mi čābē’ē, wana raftim, raftim.
rāyidim na, radda tī’im. ilmhum, raftim, kaftim inda y’ā, tamna kawla bār ba
y, xaylē barmin. ğāy ğarqa tī’im,g radda būrim, rāyidim na. sā wa āmidim
radda tī’im nafs tērō’ōwā, tamna rāyidim na.h barma tay ba ma nēxan, u
kawla u āwa tāra nēxan.i
147
fa jabara ma gidiš, rā’im ēran ba ēr rō nan. raftim a ēr rō nan, ba
qōwwit a ā, u raftim, raftim inda msandam. pīšin wābu ba ma sātē.j sā’it
yak u nīm. tamna dgōm a nādir, tanyim na ē’ū na. ādimī xābarin ba ma inda
duryō’ōwim. lā um rāyi tkim a xō. tamna dgō ba mē, rsāl pē yē inda āsūwā.
dgōm a yē, awwa talafūn tkīm na. awwa čim pi wa pištū’ō, inda msandam pi
wa pištū’ō. raftim pi wa pištū’ō, tamnā pē kawla bār ba y xaylē. rāyidim na
radda būrim.
āmidim, radda būrim ē’ū, ra’im āla ba kō’ō, jiga nādir dgō ba yē rsālō
āsūwā. ra’im āla, talafūn gidim, ga’im a šan dinyē’ē inda msandamim, rāyi
ku ba ma. rāyisim na āmisim na. wa āmidim ēranā, u raftim inda msandam.
jāmağa xō kandim pē xō, talaja’im, sarma’im, u nwā pīšin u paštin gidim
pē xō. ništim nā a gidim atta bangō.
bangu wāburā, nādir dgō kas ām ba ma na. dgōm a y lūmū ša kin na.
kawlu u barmū, bār ba y xaylē. dgōm a yē ya a brim ēmağ byārim a xō, ātiš
tkim a xō. ra’im āla ēmağ wādim a xō, āmidim, saydim a xō kāra gawdō.
nwā bangō u nwāxastin gidim. u tāruk wābu māriyā, āčō šabba gidim, u
kardīdim xō. iš xwaw āmisi na ba ma na. sarma’im xaylē.
attā šaw marra marra y inčā, šā’it čār u nīm tō’atā, rādē’ō āmidin ba
ma, rōkanin. rōkanin, u dgīn ba ma jōrin šma kum ar, wān dārin ba ma u,
xōrdin wādin ba mā, u barni . xōrdina ma u barnē a ma gidin šā xō,
xwaftin... atta āba īyā āmidim inda kum ar. āmidim kum ar, pē wān dī’in
ba ma, ādimī.
tu raftī mi āmudum.
English translation of Musandam Kumzari main text
Once, there was a wedding in Kumzar.a In the evening, they said to us, ―The
winds are going to become strong‖.b
We came to Khasab, people were inviting us here. We got up in the
morning, and then the winds got strong.c And they wouldn‘t come with us,
so we didn‘t have a motorboat. We were in problematic situation.d Now what
should we do? Now we didn‘t have a boat to go from Khasab to Kumzar!
Then they said to us, ―A motorboat in Nait Inlet is going to Kumzar: Ali
aid and his group‘s motorboat‖. We phoned them, they said, ―We already
went!‖e In any case, later we made a plan, I and Nadir. We said, ―Let‘s steal
Umro‘s motorboat, that and his car. We‘re going to Nait Inlet, we‘re going
to Kumzar!‖
We went. When we reached Nait Inlet, then, Salah Matarr and his group
were there. They said ―Don‘t go, the winds are very strong‖.f In any case, we
mustered up our strength, and we went. We went and went and went, we
reached Shaisah Bay. The winds were very strong! We said, ―Now we‘ve
got to finish it‖. We went. When we reached the mouth of Lahyu, then the
winds were very strong, it was a real gale. In any case, I said to Nadir,
148
―We‘re going. What can we do now that we‘re halfway? [lit. How is the
middle?] If we‘re going, we‘re going‖. We weren‘t able to do it, we turned
around. In any case, we went, we got into it, there were strong winds, it was
very choppy. We almost got swallowed up,g we turned around, we weren‘t
able to make it. Then when we came, we went back the same way, hey! we
still couldn‘t make it.h The waves were coming in, and the wind was
bringing water in.i
Finally we had to give in, we went down to Roznan Rock. We went to
Roznan Rock, by God‘s strength, and we went, and went on to Musandam
Island. It was early afternoon by now.j 1:30. Then I said to Nadir, ―Let‘s not
stay here. People know that we‘re at sea. We‘ve got to make a plan‖. Then
he said to me, ―There is a phone network signal over there‖. I said to him,
―First, let‘s not call. First, let‘s go from behind, to Musandam Island from
behind‖. We went from behind, and whoa! the winds were very strong. We
couldn‘t go back.
We came, we came back there, we went up on the mountain to where
Nadir had said, ―There is a phone network signal over there‖. We went up,
we phoned, we said to them, ―Hey everyone, we‘re at Musandam Island, can
you make it to us? We haven‘t been able to come there‖. So we came down,
and went on to Musandam Island. We wrapped our underskirts tightly
around ourselves, we were freezing, we were cold, and we did our early
afternoon and late afternoon prayers. We kept waiting until sunset.
When sunset came, Nadir said, ―No one‘s come for us‖. I said to him,
―Don‘t criticize them. The rain and waves, they‘re very strong‖. I said to
him, ―Come on, let‘s go and get ourselves some firewood, let‘s make
ourselves a fire‖. We went up and got ourselves some firewood, we came
back, we set it up for ourselves at the mouth of the cave. We did the sunset
and evening prayers. And when it got really dark, we lit a fire and lay down.
Sleep wouldn‘t come to us. We were very cold. Until the dead of night this is
how it was, and when in was 4:30 in the morning, the boat came to us, it was
the guys. It was the guys, and they said to us, ―They are asking about you in
Kumzar‖, they criticized us and brought food to us, and blankets. Then they
themselves took our food and blankets, and they slept…until, in the
morning, we came into Kumzar. We came to Kumzar, and there too they
were criticizing us, the people.
And we all lived happily ever after [lit., you went and I came].
149
Questions on Musandam Kumzari main text
a) MK: či inda kum ar?
L: či wāwusti inda kumzar?
What was happening in Kumzar?
b) MK: dgin ba ša či tō’a ba jawwu inda kum ar?
L: gaftin ba šan či tō’a ba hawā inda kumzar?
What did they say the weather would be like in Kumzar?
c) MK: kay kawla bār wābu ba y’ā?
L: či ğāya kawla bār hām zēran?
When did the strong winds start?
d) MK: pi či balya būrinā?
L: ba či adaba wāwudē?
Why were they in a problematic situation?
e) MK: wa talafōn gidin ba qawm ēli ēd inda xōr nētā, čāb dgīn ba
šan?
L: wa telefun gidin ba qawm ēli zēd inda xōr nētā, či gafti ba šan?
When they called Ali aid‘s group in Nait Inlet, what did they say to
them?
f) MK: qawm āla ma arr čāb dgīn ba šan?
L: qawm āla ma arr čāb gafti ba šan?
What did Salah Matarr‘s group say to them?
g) MK: wa kan kawlōwā ğāy či tō’a ba šan?
L: waqta kaftin kawlā, či ğāya wābu ba šan?
When they got into the winds what almost happened to them?
h) MK: či tērē’ē mra či radda tī’in ba y’ā?
L: pa či tērē’ē qa či tērēē radda bin ba y’ā?
Which way did they try to go back?
i)
MK: či wābu ba rādē’ō pi kawla u barman?
L: či wābu ba rādē’ō inda barman?
What happened to the boat in the wind and waves? (MK)
What happened to the boat in the waves? (L)
j)
MK: či waqta rēsidin inda msandam?
L: sā či ğāyaā?
What time did they reach Musandam Island? (MK)
What time was it by now? (L)
150
Appendix 5: Segmental inventory of Laraki
and Musandam Kumzari
(alveo-) palatal
velar
uvular
p
t
č
k
q
voiced stops
b
d
j
g
voiceless fricatives
f
s
š
x
glottal
alveolar
voiceless stops
pharyngeal
labial
emphatic alveolar
The segmental inventory of Laraki is similar to that of Musandam Kumzari,
which is described in greater detail in Anonby (2011). The consonant inventory for both varieties may be summarized as follows:
h
ğ
voiced fricatives
nasals
m
n
approximants
w
l/r
y
The vowel inventory for both varieties may be summarized as follows:
front
high
central
ī
ū
i
mid
back
u
ē
ō
a
low
ā
151
Appendix 6: Laraki and Musandam Kumzarispeaking population by settlement
This Appendix summarizes the population of Laraki and Musandam Kumzari speakers by settlement, as discussed in 3.2.1.
As shown in the table below, we estimate the total number of mothertongue Kumzari speakers, counting both Musandam Kumzari and Laraki, at
4060. In addition, there are likely about 30 second-language speakers of
Laraki on Larak Island, and perhaps two hundred latent second-language
speakers in Ra‘s al-Khaimah (4.4.1).
Sources:
Najmabadi
Oman 1993
Oman 2003
1988 (1977
census in
census (p. 90)
estimate)
Lewis (2011)
OMAN
our estimate
1700
Kumzar
150018
1297
Khasab
1500
Daba
100-150
UAE
Ra‘s al-Khaimah
>50
Ajman
100-150
Abu Dhabi
50
IRAN
Larak-e Shahri
720
600-700
Other locations
TOTAL
4060
Table 6: Mother-tongue speakers of Kumzari by settlement
18
This population varies seasonally; see 3.2.1.
152
10
Appendix 7: Images from field research
Figure 14: On the pier at Bandar-e Abbas before setting out for Larak Island
Figure 15: Collecting the Laraki wordlist
153
References
Anonby, Christina van der Wal. 2008. Features of orality in Kumzari narrative discourse: Observations from the tale B¸gh al-Mowz. Paper presented at the 1st International conference on languages and dialects in
Iran, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, October 28-31.
_____. 2009. Words within words: The embedded poems of Kumzari fairy
tales. Colloquium on documenting oral traditions in the non-western
world. Leiden University, August 27-29.
_____. (in preparation). A grammar of Kumzari.
Anonby van der Wal, Christina and Anonby, Erik J. Musandam field notes
(ms.). Primary contributors of demographic and historical information:
Malallah Suleiman al-Kumzari, Ahmad Muhammad Sheikh alKumzari, and Noufal Mohammad Ahmed al-Kumzari.
Anonby, Erik J. 2003. Update on Luri: How many languages? Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society 13:2, pp. 171-97.
_____. 2008a. Kumzari: Language between two worlds. Guest presentation
addressed to the Uppsala University Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University, October 21.
_____. 2008b. Stress-induced vowel lengthening and harmonization in
Kumzari. Paper presented at the 1st International conference on languages and dialects in Iran, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, October 28-31.
_____. 2011. Illustrations of the IPA: Kumzari. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association 41:3.
_____. (in preparation a). Comparative notes on Kumzari.
154
_____. (in preparation b). Fusion of Persian and Arabic structures in Kumzari.
Anonby, Erik J, Christina Anonby van der Wal and Ali Hassan Ali alKumzari. (in preparation). Ktēb majma Kumzārī [Kumzari dictionary].
Anonby, Erik J. and Eric Johnson. 2001. A sociolinguistic survey of the Zaghawa (Beria) of Chad and Sudan. N‘Djaména, Chad: Association SIL
Tchad.
Anonby, Erik J. and Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani. (in preparation a). Divergence across the Strait of Hormuz: A comparison of Kumzari dialects.
_____. (in preparation b). Hormozgan wordlists.
Baishak, Maryam Salam. 2002. Did the Sassanic language influence the
language of the Shihuh, and is Kumzari an affected variety? The Shihhi
dialect in the light of linguistics. Al-Khaleej 8541, p. 12, October 17,
2002.
Bergman, Ted G. (ed.). 1990. Survey reference manual (2nd ed.). Dallas: SIL.
Casad, Eugene H. 1974. Dialect intelligibility testing. Dallas: SIL.
Dostal, Walter. 1972. The Shihuh of northern Oman: A contribution to cultural ecology. The geographical journal 138, pp. 1-7.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1995. Language survey reference guide. Dallas: SIL.
an al, F¸liḥ. 1987. Al-Shuhūh [The Shihuh]. Ra‘s al-Khaimah: [publisher
unknown].
Jayakar, Atmaram S.G. 1902. The Shahee dialect of Arabic. Journal of the
Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 21, pp. 246-277.
Kent, P.E. 1979. The emergent Hormuz salt plugs of southern Iran. Journal
of petroleum geology 2.2, pp. 117-44.
Kessler, Brett. 2001. The significance of word lists. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
155
Kolbitsch, Alexander and Mirjam Kolbitsch. (in preparation). A sociolinguistic survey of the dialects of Semnan Province. Uppsala: Uppsala
University.
al-Kumzari, Ahmad M.A. 2006 (ms.). Kumz¸r [Kumzar].
Lewis, Paul. 2011. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 16th edition. Dallas:
SIL International. Available at: www.ethnologue.com.
Lorimer, John G. 1908-15. Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman, and Central Arabia. Calcutta and Bombay: Superintendant Government Printing.
Ministry of Development. 2003. Oman census, 2003. Muscat: Ministry of
Development.
Najmabadi, Shahnaz. 1988. Identité ethnique contre nationalité: Le cas de
l‘ le de L¸rak (Golfe Persique). Le fait ethnique en Iran et en Afghanistan, ed. Jean-Pierre Digard, pp. 65-74. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
_____. 1992. ‗The sea belongs to God, the land belongs to us‘: Resource
management in a multi-resource community in the Persian Gulf. Mobility and territoriality: Social and spatial boundaries among foragers,
fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics, ed. Michael J. Casimir and Aparna
Rao, pp. 329-42. Oxford: Berg.
Skjærvø, Prods O. 1989. Languages of southeast Iran: L¸rest¸nī, Kumz¸rī,
Baškardī. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt,
pp. 363-9. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichart Verlag.
_____. 2010. Iran – Modern Iranian languages – New Persian. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Available at: www.iranica.com.
Thomas, Bertram. 1929. The Musandam Peninsula and its people the Shihuh. Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 16, pp. 71-86.
_____. 1930. The Kumzari dialect of the Shihuh tribe (Musandam), Arabia,
and a vocabulary. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 62, pp. 785-854.
Tiessen, Calvin F. 2003. Positive orientation towards the vernacular among
the Talysh of Sumgayit (M.A. thesis). Grand Forks: University of North
Dakota.
156
White, Art, Michael Skoglund, Nathan McCauley and Ben Roller. 2006.
Wordsurv 6 (v. 6.0.2). Upland/Fort Wayne and Dallas: Taylor University and SIL International.
Wimbish, John S. 1989. Wordsurv: A program for analyzing language survey word lists (v. 2.512). Dallas: SIL International.
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1997. Persian Phonology. Phonologies of Asia and
Africa 2, ed. Alan S. Kaye and Peter T. Daniels, pp. 675-89. London:
Routledge.
Zaeimi, Q. 2002/2004. Tangeh-ye Hormoz [The Strait of Hormuz]. Tehran:
Daftar-e Pažuhešh¸.
Zimmermann, Wolfgang. 1981. Tradition und Integration mobiler
Lebensformgruppen: Eine empirische Studie über Beduinen und
Fischer in Musandam, Sultanat Oman. Göttingen: Georg-AugustUniversität.
Zwemer, Samuel M. 1902. Three journeys in northern Oman. The
geographical journal 19, pp. 54-64.
157
Erik Anonby