A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Metathesis in Azeri Language

Biook Behnam, Behzad Aliakbari Rassekh-Alqol


This study tries to investigate the correlation between sociolinguistic parameters such as sex, age, and social class and the use of metathesis in Azeri. There have been few studies from a sociolinguistic perspective on the use of metathesis. Through studying the stigmatized forms of speech in Azeri, the present study indicates that a significant relationship exists between extralinguistic variables and metathesis as a phonological process. The subjects of the study were Azeri speakers living in different districts of Tabriz categorized by three socioeconomically different groups. The statistical analyses of data indicate that there is an intimate and reciprocal relationship between linguistic behavior and social structure.




sociolinguistics, phonological processes, metathesis, Azeri

Full Text:



Bailey, C. J. N. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Blevins, J. and A. Garrett (2004). The evolution of metathesis. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: CUP.

Britain, D. (1998). Linguistic change in intonation: the use of High Rising Terminals in New Zealand English. In P. Trudgill & J. Cheshire (eds.), The Sociolinguistics Reader: Volume 1: Multilingualism and Variation. London: Arnold.

Chaika, E. (1990). Language: The Social Mirror. Rowley Mass: Newsbury House Publishers.

Chambers, J. K. (2002). Patterns of variation including change. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (ed.) J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes, 349-372. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chambers, J. K. & P. Trudgill. (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheshire, J. (1982). Linguistic Variation and Social Function. In S. Romaine (ed.). Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities. London: Edward Arnold.

Cheshire, J. (1987). Age and generation-specific use of language. In Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, (ed.) U.Ammond, N. Dit tmar and K. Mattheier, 760-767. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Cheshire, J. (2005). Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (4), 479-508.

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

Coates, J. (1986). Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.

Coates, J. & Cameron, D. (1988). Women in Their Speech Communities. London: Longman.

Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Downes, W. (1984). Language and Society. London: Fontana Paperback.

Eckert, P. (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In F. Coulmas (ed). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Eckert, P. (2001). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.

Graddol, D. & J. Swann. (1989). Gender Voices. Oxford: Blackwell.

Guy, G. (1988). Language and Social Class. In F. J. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, IV, Language: The Socio-cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, J. (1985). Sex Differences and Miscommunication: Some Data from New Zealand. In J. B. Pride (ed.) Cross-cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine.

Holmes, J. (1988). Paying Compliments: A Sex Preferential Positive Politeness Strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (3), 445-65.

Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and Boosters in Women's and Men's Speech. Language and Communication, 10 (3)185-205.

Holms, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Hudson, R. A. (1990). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, E. (1998a). Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua, 104, 147-186.

Hume, E. (1998b). The Role of Perceptibility in Consonant/Consonant Metathesis. Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 17. 1998.

Hume, E. (2000). The Role of Speech Perception in PhMakashay, Matt (2001) Lexical effects in the perception of obstruent ordering. In E. Hume, Norval Smith and Jeroen van de Weijer.onology: The Case of Metathesis. Paper presented to the Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.

Hume, E, N. S. & Van de Weijer., J. (2001). Surface Syllable Structure and Segment Sequencing. HIL Occasional Papers. Leiden, NL: HIL.

Hume, E. (2001). A Model of the Interplay of Speech Perception and Phonology. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology. New York: Academic Press.

Keshavarz, M.H. (2000). Issues in Applied Linguistics: A sociolinguistic Analysis of Metathesis in Persian. Tehran: Rahnama Publishing Inc.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.

Labov, W. (1980) Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.

Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics, 32,76-106.

Llamas, C., L. M, & Stockwell, P. (2007). The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. Routledge.

Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, Social Class, and Education: A Glasgow Study. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McCarthy, J. (2000). The Prosody of Phase in Rotuman. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory, 18 (1), 147-197.

McCarthy, J. and A. Prince (1995). Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. UMOP 18. 249-­‐384.

Mielke, J. and E. Hume (2001). Consequences of Word Recognition for Metathesis. In E. Hume, N. Smith and J. van de Weijer (eds) Surface Syllable Structure and Segment Sequencing. Leiden: HIL.

Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and Analyzing Natural Speech. Oxford: Blackwell.

Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Montreuil, J. (1981). The Romansch ‘Brat’. Papers in Romance, 3(1).

Mulac, E. (1986). Male/Female Language Differences in a Public Speaking Situation. Communication Monographs 53, 2,115-29.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Stone, L. D. (2003). Words of Wisdom: Language Use over the Life Span. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 291-301.

Powell, J. V. (1985). An Occurrence of Metathesis in Chimakuan. In V. Acson and R. Leed (eds.), For Gordon H. Fairbanks. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Prince, A. and P. Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. ROA-537.

Romaine, S. (1984). The Language of Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Blackwell.

Seo, M., & Hume, E. (2001). A Comparative OT Account of Metathesis in Faroeseand Lithuanian. In E. Hume, Norval Smith and Jeroen van de Weijer. (Paper also presented at the Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics, Lund, Sweden, May 2000).

Shuy, R. W. (1968). Field Techniques in an Urban Language Study. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Spencer, A. (1996). Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Torabi, Mohammad Ali. (2002). Azarbaijani and T.E.F.L (A Contrastive Linguistic Approach To T.E.F.L. To Azarbaijani Bilinguals). Tabriz University Press

Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Trudgill, P. (1983a). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Trudgill, P. (1983b). Social Identity and Linguistic Sex Differentiation. On Dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.

Trudgill, P. (1988). Norwich Revisited: Recent Linguistic Changes in an English urban Dialect. English Worldwide, 9, 33-49.

Van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (2011). The Blackwll Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell

Wardhaugh, R. (1993). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Weinreich, U., W. Labov &. Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. 97-195. Austin: University of Texas Press

Wolfram, W. (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.2p.56


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.