Kurdish
Studies
Volume: 2, No: 2, pp. 99 – 122
ISSN: 2051-4883 & e-ISSN: 2051-4891
October 2014
www.kurdishstudies.net
99
Article history: Received 28 Sept. 2014
Introduction to Special Issue
Kurdish:
A critical research overview
GEOFFREY HAIG
ERGIN ÖPENGIN
Abstract
The Kurdish language is an integral component of any conceptualisation of “Kurdishness”, but
just what constitutes Kurdish remains highly disputed. In this introduction, we take up a num-
ber of key questions relating to Kurdish (e.g. whether it is one or more than one language,
which varieties should be considered under Kurdish, what are its origins, etc.), discussing them
in the light of contemporary linguistics. A critical assessment of the notions of “language” and
“dialect” is followed by a review of different approaches to classifying Kurdish, and exempli-
fied through the case-study of Zazaki. We suggest that a good deal of the confusion arises
through a failure to distinguish different kinds of linguistic evidence (in a narrow sense), from
the results of socially contracted and negotiated perceptions of identity, rooted in shared belief
systems and perceptions of a common history. We then present an overview of recent trends in
Kurdish linguistics and attempt to identify some of the most pressing research desiderata.
Keywords: Historical linguistics; areal linguistics; grammatical change; Kurdish.
Geoffrey Haig is Professor of Linguistics at the Department of General Linguistics, Universi-
ty of Bamberg, Germany. Email: geoffrey.haig@uni-bamberg.de
Ergin Öpengin is a Postdoctoral researcher and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft fellow at
the Department of General Linguistics, University of Bamberg, Germany.
Email: ergin.opengin@uni-bamberg.de
Awirvedaneke rexneyî li lêkolînên li ser zimanê kurdî
Zimanê kurdî parçeyeke bingehî yê her çi têgihiştineke “Kurdînî”yê ye, lê belê hêj jî pirsek e ka kurdî bi xwe ji
çi teşkîl e. Di vê gotara seretayî de em berê xwe didine çendîn ji wan pirsên kilîlî yên derheq zimanê kurdî de
(wek, ka kurdî yek ziman e an ji yekê zêdetir ziman in, kîjan şêwezar divê di bin kurdî de bêne hesibandin, reh
û binetarên zimanê kurdî çi ne, hd.), û li jêr ronahiya zimannasiya hevçerx de li wan pirsan dikolin. Li dû
nirxandineke rexneyî ya têgehên “ziman” û “zarava”, hin boçûnên tesnîfkirina şêwezarên kurdî hatine raçavki-
rin, û bi pêdeçûneke dirêjtir li ser rewşa şêwezarê Zazakiyê hatine tetbîqkirin. Em diyar dikin ku para pirtir a
aloziyê ji wê yekê dertê ku delîlên zimannasî (bi menayeke berteng) bi duristî nayêne cudakirin ji sehên
huwiyet û xwanasandinê yên axêveran ku di nav jiyana civakî de durist dibin û rehên wan di pergaleke baweri-
yê û di tarîxeke hevbeş de ne. Em paşê meylên taze yên di zimannasiya kurdî de pêşkêş dikin û hewl didin hin
mijarên lêkolînê yên pêdivî destnîşan bikin.
KURDISH: A CRITICAL RESEARCH OVERVIEW
www.kurdishstudies.net Transnational Press London
100
Introduction
This volume of Kurdish Studies is dedicated to research on the Kurdish lan-
guage. While language issues have always been integral to academic and popu-
lar efforts at staking out Kurdish identities, much of the relevant linguistic
research either does not feed into the broader discourse, or is simplified or
distorted in various ways. We therefore welcome the initiative of the journal
editors in accepting a cross-section of current research in Kurdish linguistics,
reflecting fields as diverse as language contact and relevance theory in prag-
matics, as a modest attempt at embedding Kurdish linguistics more firmly into
the larger context of Kurdish studies.
Although the term “language” is a deceptively familiar item in most peo-
ple’s daily vocabulary, scientific approaches to “language” tend to highlight
different facets, yielding a multiplicity of varied conceptualisations: language
can be seen as a complex, self-organising semiotic system, as the repository of
cultural memory, an emblem of group identity, or a biologically endowed in-
stinct that triggers acquisition in early childhood, to name but a few. Our per-
spective, as linguists, is primarily in terms of language as a complex, self-
organising system, but we are sympathetic to an approach that sees the lin-
guistic system as embedded in a social matrix, of which it is both product, and
producer. In this introductory essay, we will take up both systemic linguistic
aspects as well as social ones in an attempt to develop a reasonably coherent
account of what constitutes “Kurdish”.
Attempting a definition of Kurdish/the Kurdish language(s) is an under-
taking beset with controversy. Our aim in the first part of this introductory
chapter is therefore to clarify certain conceptual matters concerning the no-
tions of “language” and “dialect”, before tackling some of the thornier issues
that have figured in discourse related to Kurdish, or “the Kurdish language”.
We then review some recent approaches to classifying Kurdish, before pre-
senting some proposals of our own. We suggest that a good deal of the con-
fusion arises through a failure to distinguish different kinds of linguistic evi-
dence (in a narrow sense), from the results of socially contracted and negoti-
ated perceptions of identity, rooted in shared belief systems and perceptions
of a common history. We do not argue for the precedence of any particular
kind of evidence in defining a language and its speech community; on the
contrary, a language is always at the nexus of a social construct with a set of
linguistic facts. What we emphasise, however, is the analytical importance of
distinguishing the findings of different fields. In the second part of the intro-
duction, we present an overview of recent trends in Kurdish linguistics,
though we make no claims to exhaustive coverage. Instead, we discuss what
we consider to have been the most salient trends, based on a selective cross-
section of the literature, and attempt to identify some of the most pressing
research desiderata. Our treatment focuses on more recent developments; we
refer to Haig and Matras (2002) for a summary of earlier research. Finally, in
the third section, we summarise the other contributions to this issue and how
they relate to the broader themes identified in this introduction.
HAIG & ÖPENGIN
© Kurdish Studies
101
On defining Kurdish
There are two principal inter-related issues in defining Kurdish: (i) which cri-
teria define its current scope, and which speech varieties should be included
under the label “Kurdish”; (ii) what is its historical descent, i.e. from which
proto-language(s) are the Kurdish varieties considered to have descended?
Though related, these issues are logically distinct. In practice, the first issue
relates mainly to the question whether Zazaki and Gorani (along with a few
other varieties like Laki and sections of what is generally called Luri) are part
of Kurdish, or independent languages. The second issue relates, on the one
hand, to whether a common ancestor can be postulated for all the varieties to
be considered under Kurdish, and, on the other hand, to the relationship of
this putative common ancestral Kurdish to a Middle or an Old Iranian lan-
guage. We begin with a discussion of the conceptual and methodological di-
mensions entailed in these two broad issues.
Dialect vs. language: conceptual issues
In spite of their apparent simplicity in daily usage, distinguishing between
“language” and “dialect” in a technical linguistic sense is very difficult, since
linguistic factors are inextricably entwined with sociological, political and eth-
nic ones. The most widespread diagnostic has been that of “mutual intelligi-
bility”, according to which varieties that are mutually intelligible are defined as
dialects of the same language, whereas varieties that are not mutually under-
standable are assigned to distinct languages. Intuitive as it may seem, it is far
from being a reliable diagnostic in several respects. In methodological terms,
it is the speakers of the varieties who understand each other or not, not the
varieties themselves. Thus speaker attitudes may weigh more than “objective”
measures of linguistic similarities/differences. It has also been pointed out
many times that this notion fails to account for chains of mutually intelligible
dialects (dialect continua), where speakers of contiguous varieties may under-
stand each other, but those at either end of the continua cannot. Where, then,
does one language stop and next begin? Furthermore, intelligibility is often a
dynamic process: on initial exposure to a different variety, one may under-
stand very little, but within a short space of time, intelligibility in one, or both,
directions, may increase dramatically. Again, this poses considerable methodo-
logical problems when attempting to assess mutual intelligibility.
In practice, there are numerous examples worldwide where the criterion is
simply ignored when languages are being defined. For instance, Swedish and
Norwegian are mostly mutually intelligible, both in spoken and written forms,
but they are standardly considered to be separate languages. On the reverse
side, mutually unintelligible varieties of Mandarin (Standard Chinese) and
Cantonese (the variety of Hong Kong, Macau, and Guangdong province),
together with five other major varieties, are considered to be dialects of Chi-
nese (cf. Wang, 1997: 55). In these and many other situations around the
world (e.g. Urdu-Hindi, Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian, Moldavian-Romanian),
what is a “language” and what is a “dialect” are determined on social and po-
KURDISH: A CRITICAL RESEARCH OVERVIEW
www.kurdishstudies.net Transnational Press London
102
litical grounds. More recently attempts have been made to relate measurable
linguistic differences (in the form of quantified phonetic differences, known
as Levenshtein distances) to degrees of mutual intelligibility, undertaken by
linguists working at the University of Groningen (see e.g. Gooskens, 2007).
The research has been conducted with speakers of Germanic languages such
as Danish, Dutch and Swedish, working in the contexts of written, standard-
ised languages in industrialised societies. It is difficult to see how this research
paradigm, promising though it may be, can be readily transferred to the Kurd-
ish context. In short, the oft-cited and supposedly “objective” criterion of
mutual intelligibility has to date been of little value in distinguishing languages
and dialects.
Recognising these shortcomings, a number of scholars have tried to go be-
yond mutual intelligibility towards more socially-informed definitions of lan-
guage and dialect. Crystal (1997: 248) has added “common/different cultural
history” to “mutual (un)intelligibility”. In a situation where these two criteria
do not match, it is considered not possible to decide on the status of the given
varieties. Trudgill’s (2000) distinction of “autonomous” vs. “heteronomous”
varieties addresses an important insight: an autonomous variety would be an
independent code, recognised as such for purposes of media and education
without necessary reference to an over-arching variety. A heteronomous va-
riety on the other hand is perceived as a variant of some autonomous code.
The intuition here is that when we use the term dialect, there is always the
sense of “dialect of X”, with X being some independently recognised linguis-
tic unit of a larger order. While this distinction is moderately useful in the con-
text of languages with state-sanctioned status, it is of restricted relevance for
the cluster of varieties that constitute Kurdish, and many other languages with
restricted official status.
It is thus a sobering fact that to this day, the science of linguistics has
nothing to offer in terms of an operative definition of “language” (cf. From-
kin et al., 2003: 446; Trudgill, 2000: 3–5). Within mainstream generative lin-
guistics, one response to this state of affairs has been to deny the relevance of
“a language” entirely, and to focus solely on the abstract linguistic abilities of
the individual speaker. Under this conception, linguistics “becomes part of
psychology, ultimately biology”, and the notion of “a language” (which im-
plies a community of speakers sharing that language) is simply sidestepped
(see Chomsky, 1986: 30-32 for justification of this line of argument). Sociolin-
guists, however, for whom the notion of speech community, or communities
of practice, is indispensable, (e.g. Fasold, 2005; Romaine, 2001), conclude that
language and dialect are fundamentally social, and not linguistic constructs: “a
language is a language if it has been so socially constructed” (Fasold, 2005:
698). The view that a language is in some sense a tangible, homogenous entity
with a more or less fixed form, most suggestively fostered in the case of large
national languages, is likewise untenable. As Linell (2005: 45) puts it:
[…] there is no single system of spoken language corresponding to
the idea of a unitary national language; instead there are overlap-
HAIG & ÖPENGIN
© Kurdish Studies
103
ping regional and social varieties as well as partially specific lan-
guages tied to communicative activities and genres. The notion of
a unitary national language is an artificial social reality attempted at
as the result of political actions, including linguists’ standardising
efforts.
Let us consider how some of these issues would relate to the Kurdish case.
It should by now be evident that there is no simple answer to the question of
whether Kurdish is “one language”, and if so, which varieties should belong
to it. The criterion of mutual intelligibility is fundamentally flawed, as we have
pointed out above, and would almost certainly yield contradictory results if
applied to Kurdish. In fact, in the absence of a generally accepted definition
of language, the question of whether Kurdish is a language is vacuous. We
can, however, meaningfully investigate what speakers of the varieties con-
cerned perceive about their own variety in relation to others. In this case,
there seems to be a relatively broad consensus among speakers of So-
rani/Central Kurdish, and speakers of Kurmanji/Northern Kurdish that their
respective varieties can be identified with a larger-order entity Kurdish/Kurdî.
Similar perceptions may hold for speakers of Southern Kurdish (Fattah,
2000), and for some varieties of Gorani (see below). We can then proceed to
explore the histories, sources and variations in these self-perceptions: where
do they originate, how have they shifted, how they correlate (or not) with oth-
er principles of social organisation (tribal, religious, means of subsistence, po-
litical). A perception of “Kurdish” is in fact historically well-attested in the
Sharafname of Sharaf Khan Bidlisi, who some 420 years ago was developing a
definition of Kurdish together with a detailed classification of its dialects on
ethnic/cultural grounds. Reference to Kurds, and to Kurdistan, feature regu-
larly in the sources of the Ottoman era; it is evident that a notion of group
identity that preceded the modern era was well established, but the precise
extension of that group identity is difficult to establish in retrospect.
In practice, there is relatively little controversy with regard to So-
rani/Central Kurdish, and Kurmanji/Northern Kurdish. The litmus test for
approaches to Kurdish are Zazaki, and Gorani. In the case of Zazaki, the dis-
cussion has become regrettably politically charged, and the linguistic argu-
ments are regularly instrumentalised by different political factions, rendering
rational debate increasingly difficult. The case is, however, extremely instruc-
tive, and therefore worth dwelling on in some detail here (below we take up
the arguments from historical linguistics on Zazaki). Reliable information on
the historical self-perceptions of Zaza speakers is hard to come by. Evliya
Çelebi, the celebrated Ottoman traveller, in his account of his journey from
Bitlis to Van, refers to the “Zaza” among a list of Kurdish tribes grazing the
alpine pastures of the Suphan Mountain north of Lake Van (Bulut 1997: 221).
In this part of his travelogue, Çelebi regularly refers loosely to “Kurdistan”
and the “Kurdish people” (qavm-i ekrad), but has otherwise little to say of the
Zazas. According to Özoğlu (2004: 34-35), in general Çelebi, like the historian
