VOlUME 05 ISSUE 10 OCTOBER 2022
Mohammed Khalid Mahmood
Department of Health & Biomedical Sciences, Aix-Marseille University, France
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i10-09Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Indo-European languages are the native languages of the habitants of south and west Eurasia. It is the largest spoken language family in the world with 3.5 billion speakers, corresponding to 46% of the world population. Kurdish and English are genetically related, belong to the same family branch of languages, and are believed to have evolved from a common proto-language. Lexical Similarity measures the similarity and/or difference between a set of words from any given two languages. Despite the abundance of lexical similarity coefficients between various world languages in the literature, there are no available data on Kurdish, even though many Kurdish natives learn English as L2. The objective of this paper is to estimate the lexical similarity between two remotely related Indo-European languages. Our results showed (8.75%) and (9.75%) lexical similarity between English and Kurdish according to the Leipzig-Jakarta and Swadesh lists respectively; giving the average of (9.25%). In conclusion, English and Kurdish languages are related Indo-European languages and the lists used in this research are proven to be reliable in the comparison between the studied languages. These cognates can be helpful for the learners and teachers of Kurdish and Kurdish in their language acquisition process.
KEYWORDS:English, Kurdish, Lexical Similarity, Indo-European, Indo-Iranian
REFERENCES
1) Bender, M. L. (1975). Toward a Lexicostatistic Classification of Ethiopian Languages. Bynon and Bynon, eds, 377-388.
2) Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818-10823.
3) Do, Q., Roth, D., Sammons, M., Tu, Y., & Vydiswaran, V. (2009). Robust, light-weight approaches to compute lexical similarity. Computer Science Research and Technical Reports, University of Illinois, 9.
4) Haspelmath, M. (2008). Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 35, 43.
5) Holman, E. W., Brown, C. H., Wichmann, S., Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Hammarström, H., Sauppe, S., Jung, H., Bakker, D., & Brown, P. (2011). Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology, 52(6), 841-875.
6) Holmes, J., & Ramos, R. G. (1993). False friends and reckless guessers: Observing cognate recognition strategies. Second language reading and vocabulary learning, 86-108.
7) Kessler, B. (1995). Computational dialectology in irish gaelic. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9503002.
8) List, J.-M. (2012). LexStat: Automatic detection of cognates in multilingual wordlists. Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Joint Workshop of LINGVIS & UNCLH,
9) Maldonado García, M. I., & Borges de Souza, A. M. (2014). Lexical similarity level between English and Portuguese. ELIA, 14, 145-163.
10) Mallory, J. P., & Adams, D. Q. (2006). The Oxford introduction to proto-Indo-European and the proto-Indo-European world. Oxford University Press on Demand.
11) Otwinowska, A. (2015). Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use. Multilingual Matters.
12) Ramat, A. G., & Ramat, P. (2015). The Indo-European Languages. Routledge.
13) Swadesh, M. (1955). Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International journal of American linguistics, 21(2), 121-137.