The Impact of Self-efficacy on Dialect Diffusion: Evidence from Jaffi Variety

1. Introduction 
Distinction of dialects is a property of the Kurdish language; The Kurdish language is known as a polylectal language consisting of various dialects used in different parts of the region. The estimated number of Kurdish speakers varies between 20 million and 40 million. The division of Kurds into many regions and countries influences this variation (Edmonds 2012).  Among the Kurdish dialects, two sub-dialects of the Sorani dialect have been the main theme of the research which are Garmyani (represented as Jaffi variety in this research) and Slemani. In this research, the Jaffi variety is used as an umbrella term for the Garmyani sub-dialect and the Warmawa dialect of Mackenzie due to the common linguistic features shared by them. Additionally, the Jaffi variety includes the dialects that are spoken in the geographical areas of Garmyan and Sharazoor. The main issue with these two sub-dialects that has caught attention is the case of diffusion occurring in the Jaffi variety. Consequently, the research focuses on Kalari speakers who are natives of Kalar district during their interactions with speakers of Slemani city. Therefore, the objectives of this research incorporate exploring the dynamics of dialect leveling and diffusion among Kalari Kurdish speakers, examining the role of self-confidence in dialect diffusion, and investigating language adaptation strategies. 

Theoretical background 
2.1. Background of Kurdish Dialects

Mackenzie has classified the Kurdish language into three groups: the northern group is Kurmanji, the central group is Sorani, and the southern group includes Kermanshahi, Ardalani, and Laki (Mackenzie, 1961).

A Kurdish linguist, Fuad Hama Khurshid, whose classification is similar to that of Tofiq Wahbi, has categorized the Kurdish language into four main dialects, each with sub-dialects (Hama Amin & Ali 2006; Azeez 2005; Khoshnaw 2013). The first of the four main groups is Northern Kurmanji, with its sub-dialects being Barzani, Hakari, Botani, Shamdinani, Badhinani, and Western sub-dialects. These sub-dialects are spoken in southeast Turkey, southwest Armenia, northern Syria, the Dohuk and Mosul provinces in Iraq, and both Khui and Qutur cities in Iran. The second Kurdish dialect is Central Kurmanji. It is most spoken in southern and eastern Kurdistan. The sub-dialects of Sorani are Mukri, Sorani, Ardalani, Slemani, and Garmiani.

Southern Kurmanji is the third category of Kurdish dialects, known as Luri. It is mostly spoken in Khanaqin, Iraq, and Qasri Shirin, Kermanshah, and Malayer in Iran. The sub-dialects of this category are Pure Luri, Bakhtyari, Mamasani, Kohgiluyeh, Lak, and Kalhur. The fourth category of Kurdish dialect in Khurshid's classification is Gorani. Even though some believe it is not a Kurdish dialect, the speakers of the Gorani dialect identify themselves as Kurds. The sub-dialects of this category are Pure Gorani, Hawrami, Bajalani, and Zaza (Khurshid 1985, 40-61; Khurshid 2008).

2.2. Jaffi variety vs. Slemani variety

Both sub-dialects of Sorani, Sulaimani, and Garmyani, are quite similar but not completely identical. Clear differences can be observed between the two sub-dialects in terms of phonology, morphology, and lexicon. Mackenzie classified the Kurdish dialect into two groups for convenience: group one is Sulaimani which incorporates the Warmawa dialect, and group two is Surçi. The Warmawa dialect (represented by the Jaffi variety in this research) has the same phonemic system as the Sulaimani dialect, with some differences in the number of phonemes.

Clear phonological differences between the two dialects can be seen in the consonant sound /b/. In postvocalic positions, /b/ coincides with /w/, e.g., Sulaimani *Qabrsan-Warmawa [qaursa:n], Sulaimani *Aybam-Warmawa [aiwam], Sulaimani *Taybat-Warmawa [taiwat]. In some words, the consonant /g/ occasionally disappears in the Warmawa dialect, e.g., Sulaimani *Lagal-Warmawa [lél]. This disappearance leads to new word formations. There are also differences in semi-vowels such as /a/. Both before and after /i/ and /y/, the phoneme /a/ is realized as a medium front vowel [3], coinciding with the position of /a/ in the Sulaimani diphthong /ay/, e.g., Sulaimani *Haya-Warmawa [h3j3], Sulaimani *Emaya-Warmawa [ē:m3j3]. Modifications in consonant groups occur in the Jaffi variety. Corresponding to the medial and final /st/ of the dialects, the realization /t/ is normal in Warmawa, e.g., Warmawa *Dasak-Sulaimani *Dastak, Warmawa *Zusan-Sulaimani *Zistan, Warmawa *Misafa-Sulaimani *Mistafa (Mackenzie 1961: 13-23). 

Both dialects share common morphological features. In Sulaimani and Warmawa, a simple noun, formally singular, may have a generic or indefinite plural sense, e.g., Sulaimani *Sari biniadam: men's head - Warmawa *Lagal rafiqim: with my friends. However, the difference in morphemes lies in the function of the suffix -á in the Warmawa dialect. In Sulaimani, a noun or nominal phrase qualified by a demonstrative adjective always takes the suffix -á, e.g., Sulaimani *Am kiça: this girl. However, in the Warmawa dialect, this is not a frequent occurrence, and -á occasionally does not appear after a qualified noun, e.g., Warmawa *Am šōrat ū naw-i bist: he heard of this fame (Mackenzie 1961: 50-51).

Furthermore, direct differences between the two dialects can be detected in the lexical items used by the speakers of both dialects. The speakers of the Sulaimani dialect use the word *Alem when expressing their opinions and *Alet when retelling someone else's opinions, while the speakers of the Jaffi variety use the word *Ezhm when expressing their opinions and *Ezhet when retelling someone else's opinions. The speakers of the Sulaimani dialect use the word *Aneeshk for elbow, while the speakers of the Jaffi variety use the word *Qurnask. These phonological, morphological, and lexical differences demonstrate that both the Sulaimani and Jaffi varieties are distinct sub-dialects of the Sorani dialect of the Kurdish language.

2.3. Dialect leveling and diffusion 

In a multi-dialectal language such as Kurdish, a phenomenon known as dialect diffusion has a high likelihood of occurring. In the sociolinguistic dictionary, the term diffusion is defined as a process by which the linguistic behavior of speakers becomes more variable.' Sociolinguists have divided diffusion into two types: relocation diffusion, which is caused by 'permanent speaker migration,' and expansion diffusion, which is defined as 'the spread of innovations across space without permanent geographical relocation of speakers.' In the case of dialect leveling, it has been defined as a process of losing some features of a dialect that are not widely shared as a result of regular contact between two or more dialects. In other words, the less frequently used features of a dialect are lost in favor of features that are more widespread in other dialects. (Swann et al. 2004: 81). For some sociolinguists, it is essential to understand the exact reasons behind the diffusion of linguistic features to grasp the geographical distribution of linguistic phenomena. The challenge lies in pinpointing the exact causes of diffusion since it is a subconscious process. Changes in linguistic features occur gradually, transitioning from the center of innovation to the receptor area.

Interaction plays a crucial role in diffusion. Constant communication between speakers from different places, particularly interpersonal communication, can be much more influential than mass media. While mass media and writers significantly disseminate new vocabulary and fashionable idioms, their influence on phonological and grammatical changes is not as effective as interpersonal communication. This is because communication through mass media is passive and does not involve interaction between the innovator and the potential receptor (Trudgill 1974).

This research focuses on the changes in phonology, morphology, and lexical usage patterns in the Jaffi variety due to the influence of the Sulaimani dialect. The Jaffi variety, under the effects of relocation or expansion diffusion from the Sulaimani dialect, is subjected to the process of diffusion.

2.4. Self-efficacy and speech accommodation

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can achieve the goals one sets for oneself and is essential for success (Bandura 1977). Society can play a crucial role in increasing or decreasing one's self-efficacy, people tend to associate with whom they can show their talent and feel competent by comparison which enhances their self-efficacy (Maddux 1995: 45). This suggests that other's perceptions of one's behavior can affect one's self-efficacy and cause dialect diffusion. People with low self-efficacy might adopt linguistic forms that are used by speakers with high levels of self-efficacy due to their influence and judgments during their interactions where diffusion can occur.

Communication accommodation theory, known as speech accommodation, is a mechanism that users of different dialects might use during interactions. First developed by Giles in the 1970s, this theory focuses on speech shifts in accents and dialects. The reasons for changing one's linguistic style could include seeking approval, affiliation, or reducing social distance. Divergence, on the other hand, involves emphasizing differences between the speaker's and interlocutor's speech, highlighting contrasting group identities. When speakers of mutually intelligible dialects come together, many may initially shift their style as a short-term accommodation, which can gradually lead to long-term accommodation (Trudgill 1986: 1-8).

Methodology

This research explores a different ground that could cause dialect diffusion. Quantitative data were used as numerical data were collected and analyzed, and a statistical and computational tool and technique were utilized to verify the data. The data were collected in a systematic process by using the Google Forms to create the survey.

4.1 Participants 

The total of participants who were investigated in this research were sixty-one participants based in Kalar and Slemani who were originally from Kalar and were speakers of the Jaffi variety. Five participants were excluded as three of them were natives of Slemani city and they were speaking in Slemani Sub-dialect and two of them were incomplete responses. The participants differed in their age, gender, and occupation. Among the participants two of them were in their thirties, one of them was nineteen and the remaining participants were between twenty and thirty. The participants were in both genders about half of them were women. This random sampling in this research was to represent the population who used the Jaffi variety and to avoid partiality in the selection of the participants. 

4.2 Data collection 

Data regarding background, self-confidence, perception alongside attitudes toward linguistic variation, and language adaptation in different social contexts of the participants of the Jaffi variety, specifically Kalari speakers, were collected through a structured survey that consisted of Likert scale questions. The survey consisted of nineteen questions in the Kurdish language. As the participants started their survey they were asked about their name and their age in the first and second questions.

4.3 Data analysis 

The Google Form application was used as the main tool for collecting data statistically and accurately and to avoid mistakes. It analyzed each question's response in percentage which made the process of interpretation simple. Then each participant's self-efficacy level, background, and response regarding their use and changes of both dialects were accumulated together to be interpreted and the researchers analyzed the effect of each of them on the other.

5. Results

 This section presents the findings of this research on language dialect leveling and diffusion, focusing on the responses obtained from a survey conducted among 61 participants. The survey utilized a set of Likert scale questions to investigate perceptions and attitudes towards linguistic variation, particularly within the context of the Kurdish language. 

Notably, 98.3% of the respondents identified themselves as speakers of the Kalari variety of Kurdish, predominantly hailing from the Garmian region.

5.1 Linguistic Features and Perceptions:

One of the primary objectives of this study was to explore the extent to which speakers perceive linguistic leveling and diffusion within their dialect. 

Participants were presented with a series of statements regarding the presence of certain linguistic features and asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. Results revealed a nuanced understanding among respondents, with a majority acknowledging the influence of external factors on their dialect, while also expressing pride in preserving traditional linguistic elements.

5.2 Impact of Self-Confidence on Dialect Diffusion

A notable aspect of the survey was the focus on exploring the role of self-confidence among Kalari speakers and its potential impact on dialect diffusion, particularly in interactions with Slemani-speaking individuals. 

The questions were designed to gauge participants' perceptions of their own linguistic abilities and the influence of social factors on language use dynamics. Also, notably more than 98% of the participants were between the ages of 20-25.

Participants were asked to reflect on their level of confidence when speaking their dialect in various social contexts, including interactions with speakers of slemani. Responses provided insights into how individuals perceive their linguistic competence and the extent to which self-confidence influences their language choices and behavior.

5.3 Results data

The survey employed in this study involved a consistent cohort of fifty-six out of sixty-one participants who provided responses to each question or statement presented. 

Notably, prior to answering the survey questions, participants were asked to provide information regarding the geographical origins of their parents. Analysis of this demographic data revealed that a substantial majority, comprising 74% of respondents, reported their parents' origins as being from the Garmian region. The remaining participants indicated their parents hailed from Slemani or other areas within Kurdistan.

Furthermore, an examination of participants' residency status yielded noteworthy insights into their recent relocation patterns. Specifically, 52.5% of the surveyed individuals reported having lived in Slemani for less than a year. This data point highlights a significant degree of recent migration or temporary relocation among the participants, potentially influencing their exposure to linguistic diversity and patterns of language use within the region.

Additionally, when participants were queried about their perception of any alterations in their dialect during their residency or stay in Slemani, 40.7% responded affirmatively, acknowledging noticeable changes. Conversely, 37.3% of respondents stated that they had not detected any significant shifts in their dialect. Notably, the remaining participants, constituting a smaller portion, reported experiencing mild changes in their dialect as a result of their time in Slemani.

Furthermore, participants were asked about their current consistent dialect usage. Notably, the majority of respondents, comprising 78% of the sample, reported consistently using the Kalari dialect of Garmian in their daily communication. In contrast, 22% of participants indicated that they consistently utilize Slemani dialect, particularly the Slemani variety, in their linguistic interactions. 

In addition to exploring self-confidence and dialectal adaptation, participants were queried about their language adaptation strategies when communicating with speakers of different dialects. Interestingly, 49.2% of respondents indicated that they do not change either the prominent or the less-used words of their dialect when conversing with others. Furthermore, 15.3% of participants reported altering only the prominent words in their dialect, while 20.3% stated that they exclusively modify the less-prominent words. Additionally, 15.3% of respondents acknowledged changing both categories of words during inter-dialectal communication.

Linguistic Features and Perceptions

The overwhelming majority of the participants recognized the influence of external factors on their dialect, indicating a nuanced understanding of linguistic evolution. 

The results suggest that while speakers are open to linguistic change, there is a strong underlying desire to maintain linguistic heritage.

Impact of Self-Confidence on Dialect Diffusion:

The findings indicate a strong link between self-confidence and language use choices among Kalari speakers, particularly in interactions with Slemani speakers. The data on participants' self-confidence in various social contexts sheds light on the complex dynamics governing language choices in multilingual settings. As posited by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, p. 85), language is a key marker of group identity, and the choices speakers make can reflect broader social alignments and resistances. 

Language Adaptation Strategies

Nearly half of the participants reported not altering their dialect in communication with speakers of other dialects, signaling a strong commitment to linguistic norms and identity. This finding resonates with the concept of linguistic resistance (Irvine & Gal, 2000, p. 90), where language practices are used to assert cultural and social identity in the face of dominant linguistic trends.

The strategic modification of dialect components, as reported by a portion of the participants, aligns with adaptive linguistic strategies observed in other contact situations (Auer, 1999, p. 59).

7. Conclusion

This research has delved into the impact of self-confidence on dialect use and its role in dialect leveling and diffusion among Kalari Kurdish speakers. We found that self-confidence significantly influences individuals' decisions to maintain their dialect, thereby serving as a critical factor against the homogenization of language. High self-confidence encourages the preservation of linguistic identity and resilience against dialect convergence, especially during interactions with Slemani speakers.

Additionally, this study highlights the complexity of dialect diffusion and leveling, showing that while some individuals adjust their dialect for communication, many uphold their linguistic practices, reflecting a deep-seated commitment to cultural norms. This illustrates the intricate balance between personal agency and sociocultural influences in language evolution.

In essence, the findings underscore the crucial role of self-confidence in navigating language change, suggesting that individual psychological factors, alongside sociocultural dynamics, shape dialect sustainability and transformation. This research contributes to the understanding of sociolinguistic processes, advocating for broader linguistic studies and a diversified methodological approach to capture the rich tapestry of language use and change.

References

Auer, P. (1999). Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Azeez, H. M. (2005). Linguistic sensation & problems of Kurdish language سه لیقه ی زمانه وانی و گرفته‌کانی زمانی کوردی (2nd ed.). Sulaimanya: Aro Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Coupland, N. (1985). Sociolinguistics and social theory. Longman.

Edmonds, A. J. (2012). The dialects of Kurdish. Uni-m. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/3692325/The_Dialects_of_Kurdish

Flammer, A. (2001). Self-efficacy. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 13812–13815). https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01726-5

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. Academic Press.

Giles, H., & Soliz, J. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 38 (1st ed., pp. 108-131). Routledge.

Hama-amin, S., & Ali, B. (2006). Dialects and its Sub-Dialects زارو شێوەزار. Sulaimanya: Chwarchira Publishing.

Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35-83). School of American Research Press.

Jones, L., & Singh, P. (2020). Language maintenance and shift: Perspectives from minoritized languages. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(2), 182-201.

Khurshid, F. (1985). Kurdish language; geographical division of Kurdish dialects زمانی کوردیو دابەشبوونی دایالێکتەکانی. Baghdad: Afaq Publishing.

Khurshid, F. (2008). Kurdish language and its dialect زمانی کوردی و دیالێکته‌کانی. Sulaimanya: Sardam Publication.

Khoshnaw, N. (2013). Kurdish standard language زمانی ستانداردی کوردی. Erbil: Hivi Publishing.

Mackenzie, D. N. (1961). Kurdish dialect studies 1. RoutledgeCurzon.

Maddux, J. E. (2013). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. Springer Science & Business Media.

Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, self & society. University of Chicago Press.

Schwarzer, R. and Jerusalem, M. & Weinman, J. & Wright, S. & Johnston, M. (2021) Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. Measures in Health Psychology, ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298348466_The_General_Self-Efficacy_Scale_GSE.

Smith, J. A. (2018). Globalization and the preservation of language heritage. International Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(1), 45-67.

Swann, J. (2019). Dictionary of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Nelson-Hall.

Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Georgetown University Press.

Trudgill, P. (1974). Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society, 3(2), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004358

Trudgill, P. (2006). Dialects in contact. Wiley-Blackwell.