No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
This report follows the general lines established by Professors Peter F. Abboud and M.A. Jazayery when they dealt with Arabic and Persian respectively. Its purpose is to survey the development of Turkish language instruction in North America, to present and evaluate the present position, and finally to put forward some questions and recommendations for consideration in the future. Although responsibility for the general tenor and emphasis of the report is mine, I have been guided by the various opinions of my colleagues and have attempted to give these opinions a fair presentation. Towards this end I have not hesitated to indicate where there is divergence among us, or between us and those who teach in other, but related, areas.
1. See Abboud, Peter F., “Arabic Language Instruction”, MESA Bulletin, Vol. 5, No.2 (May 1, 1971), pp. 1–23Google Scholar; and Jazayery, M.A., “Persian Language Instruction”, MESA Bulletin, Vol. 6, No.1 (February 1, 1972), pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
2. I wish to thank Professors Abboud and Jazayery for their spadework in establishing the language surveys; Professor Jazayery for making available to me his Questionnaire; finally all those who supplied me with information (in one case at very short notice from a sabbatical address in Europe).
3. Shaw, J. Stanford, Ottoman and Turkish Studies in the United States (prepared for the Conference of Ottoman-Turkish Studies; University of Wisconsin, May 7–9, 1971), mimeographed text, p.1.Google Scholar
4. I am indebted for this information to Mr. Nafi Donat, present archivist at the Seminary.
5. Itzkowitz, Norman, The State of modern Turkish Teaching in America, a paper delivered at the Conference on Ottoman-Turkish Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, May 7–9, 1971. Mimeographed text, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
6. These classes were given under the flag of the Department of Indo-Iranian and Linguistics, one of the four departments in the Division of Ancient and Oriental Languages aid Literatures (the others: Greek and Latin, Semitic, Chinese and Japanese), a fact that reflects a common approach to Turkish in those days.
7. Figures supplied by the Modern Languages Association from their surveys of student registration. (The MLA are the first to admit that, for a number of reasons, figures in their surveys may not be exact).
8. Tietze, Andreas, Turkish Workshop Report, Columbia University, June 13–17, 1966. Mimeographed text, p.1.Google Scholar
9. Cf. note 7 above.
10. See Abboud report p. 3.
11. Ibid, p. 13.
12. See Jazayery report p. 21.
13. Ibid, p. 13.
14. “Pure Turkish” as recommended by modern language reformists.
15. Tietze, , Turkish Workshop Report, p. 2.Google Scholar
16. See above under Introduction I. Background.
17. Forthcoming issues of the Bulletin will publish bibliographies for Turkish language teaching and Turkish literature
18. Abboud report, p. 8.
19. Itzkowitz, op. cit., p. 7.
20. As an example of this type of inter-university cooperation, Cornell University recently announced a program whereby it will admit juniors from other Colleges to spend a year at Cornell taking specialized (and economically non-profitable!) courses such as astrophysics and medieval, Semitic and Asian studies. At the same time Cornell juniors will be allowed to go elsewhere to take courses not available at Cornell.
21. Shaw, op. cit., p. 9.
22. Idem.