AZERBAIJANI LANGUAGE
- Academic year
- 2025/2026 Syllabus of previous years
- Official course title
- LINGUA AZERI'
- Course code
- LT0204 (AF:502868 AR:290673)
- Teaching language
- Italian
- Modality
- On campus classes
- ECTS credits
- 6
- Degree level
- Bachelor's Degree Programme
- Academic Discipline
- L-OR/13
- Period
- 2nd Semester
- Course year
- 2
- Where
- VENEZIA
Contribution of the course to the overall degree programme goals
Objectives of the courses are: 1) to acquire knowledge of the phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax of the Azerbaijanian language, the official language of Azerbaijan 2) knowledge of Azeri dialectology and c) knowledge of Old Azeri.
Expected learning outcomes
Pre-requirements
Contents
-Alphabet and pronunciation, nominal and verbal morphology (derivational and inflectional), sentence structure (syntax) of Azerbaijanian
-Azeri dialectology
-Azeri sociolinguistics
- Old Azerbaijanian (Ajemi Turkic)
Referral texts
Bulut, C. 2018. The Turkic varieties of Iran. In: Haig, Geoffrey & Khan Geoffrey (eds.) The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An areal perspective (The World of Linguistics 6). Berlin & Boston. 398-444.
Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. & Róna-Tas, A. & Utas, B. 2016. Turks and Iranians: Interactions in language and history (Turcologica 105). Wiesbaden.
Dehghani, Y. 2000. A grammar of Iranian Azari: including comparisons with Persian (LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics 30.) München.
Fierman, W. & Garibova, J. 2010. Central Asia and Azerbaijan. In: Fishman, J. A. & García, O. (eds.) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford. 423-451.
Hatcher, L. 2008. Script change in Azerbaijan: acts of identity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192, 105-116.
Gandjei, T. 1992. Turkish in the Ṣafavid court of Iṣfahān. Turcica XXI-XXIII, 311-318.
Garibova, J. 2009. Language Policy in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: Political Aspects.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 198, 7-32.
Johanson, L. 1997. A grammar of the “lingua turcica agemica”. In: Kellner-Heinkele, B. & Zieme, P. (eds.) Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 47.) Wiesbaden. 87–101.
Johanson, L. & Bulut, C. (eds.) 2006. Turkic-Iranian contact areas. Historical and linguistic aspects (Turcologica 62). Wiesbaden.
Landau, J. M. & Kellner-Heinkele, B. 2001. Politics of language in the ex-Soviet Muslim States: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Ann Arbor.
Perry, J. 1996. Persian in the Safavid Period: Sketch for an Etat de Langue. Pembroke Papers 4 (1996), 269-83.
Perry, J. 2001. The historical role of Turkish in relation to Persian of Iran. Iran & the Caucasus 5 (2001), 193-200.
Ragagnin, E. 2016. Mongolic loanwords in Azerbaijanian: an areal view. Turkologiya 2016/2, 19-26.
Rahmati, N. & Buğday, K. 1998. Aserbaidschanisch: Lehrbuch. Unter Berücksichtigung des Nord- und Südaserbaidschanischen. Wiesbaden.
Schönig, C. 1998. Azerbaijanian. In: Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á. (eds.) The Turkic languages. London & New York. 248-260.
Širaliev, M. Š. 1983. Dialekty i govory azerbajdžanskogo jazyka. Baky.
Širaliev, M. Š. & Sevortjan, Ė. V. 1971. Grammatika azerbajdžanskogo jazyka (fonetika, morfologija i sintaksis). Baky.
Stein, H. (ed.) 2014. Turkic language in Iran – past and present (Turcologica 100). Wiesbaden.
Sultanzade, V. 2009. Turkish-Azerbaijani dictionary of interlingual homonyms and paronyms. (Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics 75). München.
Assessment methods
Type of exam
Grading scale
17 FAIL
18-20 PASS
Limited comprehension of notions, limited skill of exposition and reflection, no critical capacity
21-23 SATISFACTORY
Sufficient comprehension of notions presented in an unclear and reflexive manner; difficulties in elaborating, and synthesizing ideas
24-26 GOOD
Good comprehension of notions but limited capacity of exposition, reflection, and synthesis
27-28 VERY GOOD
In-depth comprehension of notions that are presented in a clear and articulated manner; remarkable synthesizing capacity and critical reflection
29-30 VERY GOOD
Broad and in-depth comprehension of notions that are presented in an articulated and sophisticated manner. Excellent ability in exposing ideas synthetically, and critical ability
30 CUM LAUDE EXCELLENT
Broad and in-depth comprehension of notions showing an advanced knowledge of broader disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates, a mastery of academic language, and a capacity for original and critical thinking