Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:07:24.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Reform in Turkey and Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

John R. Perry
John R. Perry
Affiliation:
Department of near Eastern Languages and CivilizationsUniversity of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all man's cultural badges, that of language is perhaps the most intimately felt and tenaciously defended. Even chauvinists who are prepared to concede under pressure that language, race, and culture are not the same thing—that their national ethnicity may be mixed, their religion imported, their culture synthetic to a degree—will still cling to the national language as the last bastion of irrational totemic pride. Hence, one of the most controversial features of the programs of westernization and modernization fostered by Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and Reza Shah in Iran was that of state-sponsored language reform, characterized chiefly by attempts to “purify” Turkish and Persian of their centuries-old accretion of Arabic loanwords. A case study of this process also affords some insight into the differing attitudes to national social reforms in Turkey and in Iran, and among the respective regimes, intelligentsia, and masses, which might help to explain why on balance one “succeeded” while the other “failed.”

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 1985 , pp. 295 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Author' Note: This is an expanded version of a paper presented at the Atatürk Centennial Sympodium organized by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of Chicago, June 5, 1982.Google Scholar

1 See Ahsan, A. Shakoor, Modern Trends in the Persian Language (Islamabad, 1976), pp. 7–8. Transliteration of Persian, Arabic and Ottoman Turkish for convenience follows a system based on Persian. Modern Turkish is given in the current orthography.Google Scholar

2 Bodrogligeti, A., “Islamic Terms in Eastern Middle Turkic,” Acta Orientalia (Budapest), 25 (1972), 359.Google Scholar

3 Heyd, Uriel, Language Reform in Modern Turkey (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 10–12, 16–17;Google ScholarÖzdemir, Emin, Dil Devrimimiz, TDK Yayinlari 269 (Ankara, 1968), pp. 20–30.Google Scholar

4 See Ahsan, p. 103.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Bahār, Mohammad Taqi, Sabkšenāsi, vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Tehran, 1337/1959), pp. 403–4;Google ScholarFarshidvard, Khosraw, 'Arabi dar Fārsi, 2nd impression (Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

6 Ahsan, pp. 103–4.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Heyd, p. 18;Google ScholarNāmeh-ye Farhangestān, 1(1), (1322/1943–1944). 11.Google Scholar

8 Heyd, pp. 25–26;Google ScholarÖzdemir, pp. 42–46.Google Scholar

9 Nāmeh-ye Farhangestān 1(4), 2–3;Google ScholarAhsan, p. 112.Google Scholar

10 See Wilber, Donald N., Riza Shah Pahlavi: The Resurrection and Reconstitution of Iran (New York, 1975), pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

11 See, typically, the exchange in Ettelā'āt, 12 and 13 Esfand 1313/March 3 and 4, 1935, between Qahramāni and “' h. h.”Google Scholar

12 Ettelā'āt. 3 Esfand 1313/ February 22, 1935. The placing of this editorial next to advertisements in Roman characters for CONQUEROR and ROLLS RAZOR shaving blades is probably fortuitous.Google Scholar

13 See Platts, J. T., A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and Englisch (Oxford, 1884).Google Scholar

14 See Steuerwald, Karl, Untersuchungen zur türkischen Sprache der Gegenwart, vol. I (Berlin - Schöneberg: Langenscheidt, 1963), p. 110.Google Scholar

15 Wilber, p. 104.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Ahsan, pp. 113–14. This brief but valuable account of the genesis of the Farhangestān—the only one I know of outside the Persian sources—suffers from faulty chronology and excessive reliance on self-serving publications by the Academicians.Google Scholar

17 See Nāmeh-ye Farhangestān 1(1), 15 ff.Google Scholar

18 Heyd, p. 34;Google Scholar see also Özdemir, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar The official Turkish version of the Sun-Language Theory, with diagrams, is reproduced in Steuerwald, pp. 71–76.Google Scholar

19 Heyd, pp. 36–49;Google ScholarÖzdemir, pp. 53–54;Google ScholarSteuerwald, pp. 45–47.Google Scholar

20 Wilber, pp. 160, 169.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 148.

22 Hřebíček, Luděk, “The Turkish Language Reform and Contemporary Lexicon,” Archív, Orientální, 45 (1977). 137–38;Google Scholar see also Heyd, pp. 97ff;Google ScholarÖzdemir, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

23 Heyd. pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

24 Wilber, p. 235 (the term does not translate as “first birth”).Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 237–38.

26 Ibid., p. 169.

27 See, e.g., Āshtiyāni, 'Abbās Eqbāl, “Bāz ham, Farhangestān,” Yādgār, 3, 6–7 (1947), 1–7.Google Scholar

28 See Kasravi, Ahmad, Zabān-e Pāk, 3rd impression (Tehran, 1339/ 1960), pp. 42–43, 53, 54.Google Scholar

29 See Ahsan, pp. 105, 106.Google Scholar

30 Ülkü, Vural. Sprachereinigungsbestrebungen in Deutschland (Ankara: University Press, 1975), pp. 17–18;Google ScholarHeyd, p. 108.Google Scholar

31 Heyd, pp. 29–30, 52–54.Google Scholar