21
-$ ,. ... HANDBUCH DER TORKISCHEN SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT 1990 HARRASSOWITZ . WIESBADEN

Brendemoen Turkish Language Reform

  • Upload
    sam1

  • View
    310

  • Download
    19

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Bernt Brendemoen, "The Turkish Language Reform and Language Policy in Turkey", in G. Hazai, ed., Handbuch der Tuerkischen Sprachwissenschaft, teil 1, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1990.

Citation preview

-$ ζ ,. ...HANDBUCH

DER TORKISCHENSPRACHWISSENSCHAFT

ΤEIL Ι

HERλυOOEOEBENVΟΝ

GΥδRGΥ ΗΑΖΑΙ

1990

σπσ HARRASSOWITZ . WIESBADEN

\

ΤΗΕ TURKISH LANGUAGE REFORMΑΝΟ LANGUAGE POLICY ΙΝ ΤURKEY

by BERNΤ BRENDEMOEN

Ι Compared wilh AIaIurk's other reforms the alphabel and laπguage reformsaffecled cvcry Iίlcrale Turkish citizcn ίπ a more direct, personal and fundamentalway. Νοι οπlΥ was a nCw alphabet ιο be adopted: with the more ΟΓ Icss rigorousabolishmcnl ofwords ofAr.tbic and Persian οιίΒίπ and Iheir replacement by knownοι unknown Turkish - ΟΓ aIIegedlyTurkish - words, the speakers of the languagewcrc foreed 10 change their way of expressing themselves. This process inevitably

:.rcsulted ίπ Ihc adoplion of a more reflected attitude towards Iheir laπguage. AndIhc morc educated the speaker was. Ihe more fundamental the change had Ιο be.

Sinee Ihe rcform, if ίι was Ιο be carried ουΙ efficiently, thus would affecl every~ilcrate speaker pcrsonaIIy, the necessity, exlent and methods of the reform havebccn discussed fcrνcntly from both scientific and unscientific points of view fromihc limc ίl was first announced υπιίl loday.

Ι do ποl intend, and do ποΙ have the possibility, ιο discuss here the vast litcraturewrittcn abouI Ihc laπguage reform. Because ofthe fundamental changes the reformimplίcs, ίl is but ποΙυΓΟ\ that a ροιΙ of the"arguments which have been put forth isbased οπ senlimenlal and arbitrary poinls of view rather than οπ scienlificfoundations. However, Ihe views and arguments Ihese "senIimental" publίcations

prcscnl wiII be discussed Ιο Ihe extent they are relevant ιο the understanding of theclemcntsoflhc reform. Αι the language reform isa subjecl οπ which the same thingshavc bccn said and the same arguments have been used a great number of times, \wiII cspcciaIIy emphasize the points οπ which the literature holds views differingfrom the standard arguments. Ι also intend ιο deal primari\y with the workspublished after the Sccond World War.Α bibliography of Ihe Iίterature dealing with the language reform has sIiII ιο be

published. Good bibliographical information is found ίπ ΗλΖλΙ 1978, espcciaIIy105-107, and ίπ seclion ΒΡ of Ihe current Turk%gi.vcher An=eiger. For o\derIilcraturc sec ΗλΖλΙ 1971, where 257-258 arc espcciaIIy useful. The bibliographyprcsented οl the end of this arιicle is ίπ πο way intended Ιο be complete.

! Thc Development "f the Rcr"rm up t<\ Ι 9ΚΟ

2,1 lι may be useful ιο recapitulate briefly the main events ίπ the reformmovemenl before we proceed ιο discussing the literature which deaIs with thissubject.

454

AIlhough Ihc seed oflhc languagc reform was sown ίπ Ihc Tanz/mat pcriod, andthc attempts ΙΟ bring Ihc writtcn Ianguagc closer ιο Ihc spokcn idiom wcrc frcquentduring Ihe first decades ofthis eentury, ίι did σοι becomc cvidcnl υπιίΙ Ihe alphabelreform was promulgaled by AIDturk ίπ 1928 Ihal a profound laπguagc reform wasalso inevitable. [π Ihe same way as Turkish words had bccn basicaIIy forcign 10 Iheprinciples of Arabic scripl, Arabic and Pcrsian words now becamc parliaIIyuninleIlίgible when written wilh Lalin Icllers, Οπο year laler, when Ihe leaching ofArabic and Persian as schooI subjecls was abolished, Ihe door 10 Ihe Easl wasirrevocably closed. υπιίl Ihcn, knowIedge of Arabic and Persian had bccn aproductive elemcnl ίπ any wcII-cducated spcakcr's languagc.

Ataturk's aim -Iίke Ihal ofproιagonisls bcforc him such as ΖίΥα Goka/p- was10 creale a language which evcrybody could undersland, by nalionalizing ίι, i. e."Iiberaling" ίl from ils foreign elcmenls. "Olkcsini, yiiksek islikliίlίni korumasInIbiIen Tiirk miIIeli, dilίni de yabanc\ diIIer boyunduruiundan kurιarmalIdιr," hesaid ίπ a spcech delίvered ίπ 1930.He also wanlcd Ihe Turkish Ianguage 10 allain Ihehonourablc ΡOSiliOn ίl dcserνcd among Ihe ~u/Iursprachen of Ihc world. Theprogram for how Ihesc aims werc 10 be rcachcd and Ihc inslitulional form 10 rcalizeίl wcre ποl eslablished υπιίl1932, when Turk Di/i TeIkik CemiyeIi(from 1934 TurkDi/i Ara~Iιrma Kurumu, from 1936 Turk Di/ Kurumu, abbrevialcd as ΤΟΚ) wasfounded.

Ι" order 10 find Turkish replaeemcnls for Ihc words ofArabic and Persian origin,committees wcrc eslabIished Ιο coIIecl words from Analolian dialecls unknown ίπ

standard Turkish. Αι Ihe same time, old Ottoman Icxls were scarched for Turkishwords πο longer used ίπ thc standard vcmacuiar, and dίcιίοπaήcs(lίkeRadloff's) ofolher languagcs bcIonging 10 Ihe vasl Turkic family, were scrulinizcd.

Even if Α taturk had ποl already rcgardcd ίl as a major ροίπΙ al Ihc beginning, Ihereplacement of words from European languages by pure Turkish words alsobecame one of Ihe items οπ TDK's program.

Thc result of this intensive work was Osman/tcadan Turkfeye Soz Kar~I/Ik/arι

Tarama Dergisi (1934), which indeed marks the pcak of Turkish purism. Jt hadapproximateIy 7000entrics and four limcs as many "Turkish" words as subslitules.Because many of Ihc suggestcd subslitulcs werc fcll 10 bc compIcleIy slrangc andincomprehensiblc, and oftcn morc Ihan one (somclimes Icn οι morc) substitule wassuggcsled for each Ottoman word, Ihc diclionary had πο suceess, and Α taturkhimsclf was greally disapρoinlcd.

Thc relreal was done ίπ a mosl remarkable way: [π Ihe SΡήπg of 1935 areorganised dictionary committec publishcd o.,man/tcadan Τurkςeye Cep Κι/αναΖα

and Τurkςeden o.,man/I("Qya ('ep Κι/αναΖα. Hcrc, many of thc crrors undambiguities ofthe TaranID Dergi.'i were corrected, but οl Ihc samc lime about 16%of Ihe "puristic" suggeslions were words of foreign ΟΓίΒίπ, sometimes aItered Ιο

conform with Turkish phonologicaI rules, prescnlcd with Ihc pυzzlίΠB remark Τ.Κδ

- "Tίirk kOkiindcn". ΤΟΚ expressed Ihe astonishing view that ίl had found

455

rc&sons ιο beIieve that these words had actual1y been borrowed by foreignlanguag~ from Turkish roots, and that therefore υο objection could be madeιΡίηιι ''ιakίng them back" and using them ίη modern Turkish.

Few months ΙθΙΟΤ,. the infamous GUne~-DίITeo,isi was promuIgated. According10 this amazing theory, language - ίη ίι. most primitive form - ί. based οη thesoundsand sylIables expressed by man ίη primeval times, when he first (οΙι the needΙο name the objecιs ίη his surroundings and their qualities. ΒΥ comparing Turkishwith more οτ less obscure languages like Sυmeήaη, Elamite, and Basque, and bymeans of obscure etymoIogizations and a vivid imagination, ίι was "ρτονω" thatTurlιish was ιΜ mother of al1languages of the world, just as ίι had aIready beenproved that Turkish civiIization of Central Asia was the origin of al1 civilizations...Nach der Proklamation der SοnnenSΡrachιheοήe waren weitere Einzel,untersu­chunιen' ϋberfιiissίg geworden, da jegliches Sprachmaterial, das οίη gebildeterΤϋΓΙιο benotigte, ohne weiteres ebenso turksprachlich wurde, wie die GegenstandeΊ;υ Gold wurden, die der Konig Midas berϋhrΙe." (STEUERWALD 1963,30.)

Ιη this way the first stage ofTurkish language reform reached a conclusion which,ΊιΙ first gIance, may seem Ιο be somewhat unsuccessfuι. However, ίι ί. important ηοΙ10 forget that people's consience about their mother tongue had been - ifsomewhat brutal1y - awakened, and that ονοη the most (οτνοηΙ ορροηοηι. of theway ίη which the reform was carried out, were forced Ιο moderate their use ofOttomanisms ίη writing ίη order ιο be accepted by their readers.

1.1 Afterthedeath of Atatu,k. the language reform continued under the aegis of/mwt /nonu. as if the Gune~-D;I Teo,;s; had ηονοτ been put forth. The workconsisted now mainly ίη attempts ιο make people adopt the new words alreadysugιested by ΤΟΚ, and ίη te,im (aIt~maIarι- attempts Ιο find (JΖιu,kςe

repIacements for technical and other terms of foreign origin used .ίη education.However, ίη 1940,ΤΟΚ "re-affirmed that those foreign words which by constant

use had penetrated ίηιο popular speech might, οη certain conditions, be regarded asnaturalized citizens of the Turkish language." (HEYD 1954, 36.) Nevertheless, ίη

1942, the crownjeweI of the terminology dictionaries published by ΤΟΚ, FeIs./. ".G,αmι!' TerimIe,; was published, and became subject ιο νΟΓΥ hard criticism for ίι.

extremeIy puristic lίne. This and similar endeavours of ΤΟΚ, especially the''Iranslation'' of the τ.~kίΙάι-ι &ο.,ίΥ' Kanunu ίηιο a puristic, but somewhatinconsistcnt. ΛπαΥα.\'α (1945), combined with the ~nnounccmcnt ofgrcu.tcrpoliticaIfreedom, Ied Ιο the forming of θη organized opposition Ιο ΤΟΚ and the officialIanguage policy. Muallim Βί,Ιίκί and Hu, Fikirleri Yuymu C'cmίΥΙ'ιί now openlyCIIpressed their profound disagreement wiIh ΤΟΚ οη almost al1 ροίηι. of themethods and the program of the organization. ΤΟΚ and the government wereforced Ιο fol1ow a more moderate Iiηο, and thus Η. C. YaII·tn. who was known forhis rather moderate views οη language matters, was eIected president of ΤΟΚ'.sixth congress ίη Ι949.

456

When Ihe Oemocratic Party ΙοοΙ ονΟΓ ίη 1950,ΤΟΚ l0sΙ ίι. official staIus. υηιίl

Ihen the ΟΓμηίΖθιίοη had received 46 % of ίι. income from the govemment and30 % asa testamentary endowment made by Ataru.k. The government now decidedΙο cut off ίι. subvenIion. Jt must have been a great defeat for the members ofTOKιο see the ΙοχΙ of their Anayasa being aboIished and the old ΙοχΙ of Ι924 beingreintroduced by the νοιε ofθη overwhelming majοήΙΥ ίη Parliament ίη 1952.Quitea number of the most prominent figures ίη ΤΟΚ had unIiI the 1950. been peopIewithout any special quaIifications for dealing with Iinguistics. Now universityprofessors and writers were eIected members Ιο a greater οΧΙοηι, and theorganization rather got the appearance of an academy, devoting itself more ιο

editing and publishing old texts, arranging lίnguίsΙίc conferences etc. The demandof αrι diI was replaced by sade dil.

AIready before 1950 οηο couId discern the tendencies that have led ιο thesiΙUation today: DiI dάvάs/ has gradual1y developed ίηιο a ρα,ιί dάvάsι. From ahistoricaI ροίηι of view ίι must be pointed out that the langυage probIem haswithout doubt been οηο of the factors that led Ιο the forming of a politicalopposition ίη the 19405. When the Menderes ι'egime came ΙΟ an end ίη 1960, and"ΜίΙΙί ΒίΓlίΙ Yonetimi" came ΙΟ power, the work of ΤΟΚ made great progressagain. Αη evidence for this ί. the Anayαsa of 1961,which contains a great number ofneologisms, ονοη if ίι ί. far more conserνative than the Constiιution of 1945. Ιη thisperiod official directives were issued, recommending the use of (jΖΙU,kς.as officiaIadministration language. (SimiIar directives were issued later οη severaI occasionswhen Cumhu,i}'et HaIk Pa,tisi was ίη power.)

Ιι is, however, typicaI ofthe situation that ίη 1967,after AdαΙoΙ Pα,ιίsίhad ΙθΙιοη

ονΟΓ, a biIl proposing the puristic Ianguage of the ConstiΙUtion as the only legalIanguage ηοΙ οηlΥ ίη public administration, but aIso ίη ''other connections whichcould have θΩ effect οη society", was ηονΟΓ put Ιο a νοΙο ίη Parliament.

WithouI making ιοο gross a generalization, οηο can say that up ιο 1980,attemptsof continued purification have been successfully performed mostly when Cumhu­,ίΥ'Ι HaIk Pa,tIsI waSίη power, but ηοι at other times. DiIdev,imi was instigated byΑ lu/U,k. and ονοη if θΙΙ official Ροli'ιίcal parties officiaIly follow his path, theIanguage question ίο οηο ofthe ροίηι.where the ήghι wing Ρθτιίο. were opposed toCHP. which ίη this matter, as ίη many others, regarded iIseIf as the οηlΥ truefoIlower of Alatu,k. and as a true d.v,imci party, ΑΙ leasΙ when ίι came Ιο IhedevrinI/er of AIaturk.

AdaI., Ρα,ιί.<ίwas mostly against a continued reform, and ΜίΙΙίSeIάmet Ρα,ι;";

ονοη (ίη periods) pronounced that ίι wanted Ιο undo the alphabet reform. CιZDF.MIR

describes the laηguage siιuation of 1975, when mostly the right-wing'Μίlli Ceph."was ίη power, ίη the following way: "α~oη ΥΙI (1974, when the Ecevit governmentwas ίη power until the auιumn) bakanlIkIarca genelgeler yaYImlanmI~, yazI~malar­

da ΤϋΓΙιςΟΥΟ saygIgosterilmesi istenmi~ti. Bugenegeler ΥϋΓϋΙιlϋΙιΙοη kaldtrιlarak δΖ

ΤϋrkςecίΙίΑίn bιrakIlmasI, 'milli dil' i1ο uyu~mayan sδΖcϋkΙerίn kullantlmamast

457

,

bυYurulmu,tur. δrηe~ίη, Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanli~lnca yaYImlanan birgenelgede.tίim ί'ΥerΙeήηde, fabήkalaΓda όι ΤίiΓkςeηίη kesinlikle kullanIlmayaca~I

beIirtilme,tir," (δΖDΕΜIR 1976,92.) However, when CHP came back ιο power ίη

1977, the whole siΙUaIion was again reversed.There is υο doubt that ίη the 1970's, BuIent Εανίι. the ieader of CHΡ. played an

imΡOnant pan ίη awakening a common linguistic consciousness through hisdeliberate use of(JΖιurkςe ίη his speeches, especially ofcourse during his periods asa Ρήme minister. His frequent use of neologisms which hardly would have beenaccepιable otherwise,like ofanak. ofa."ftk, .,upιamak, has had the result that thesewords were if τιοι actively adopted by others than his adherents, have at leasι

entered the passive vocabulary of most speakers.lη this a way, due Ιο party politics, the Ianguage reform more and mOIe also

became what ίι should be: a subject ofengagement ηοΙ οηΙΥ fOI declared reformists,anti-reformists, and politicians. but also fOI everyday speakers. The engagement ofauthors, mostly fOI the reform, has of course aIso been important.

After 1965 the officiaI ΡOlicy ofTOK wa. more ΟΓ Iess Ιο retain those wOIds offoreign origin which are ίη common use as Iong ο> ηο good substiιutions have beenf<!iund fOI them, however ηοΙ excluding the hope and possibility that suchsubstiιutions some day wiII be found. Αι the S3metime, efforts were made tocreaIe aseientitic Turkish terminology fOI different tilds of sciences, see section 6. FOI thepeήod after 1980, See 9.

1.3 Among the publications treating the historical deveIopment of the Ianguagereform, HEYO'S (1954) and STEUERWALD'S (Ι963) sιudies are without doubt themost instructive ones. With great objectivity ΗΕνο 1954describes the backgroundfor the reform and the stages ofits development. He pIaces the reform 3ttempIs ίη ahistorical context together with AIUlurk's other reforms, especiaIIy the religiousones. He ΡOints ουΙ, fOIexamp!e, that the estabIishment ofTOK ίη Ι932 coincideswith the banning of the e:an ίη Arabic, and that /niinu's renewed puriticationaIIempts ίη the beginning of the 1940s may be regarded as a manifestation of thesame menIality as the one which added the amendments Ιο the Criminal Ιaw, whichincreased the penalties ΓΟΓ non-observance οΓ the hedgear and aIphabet Iaws(οΙ'. cίι., 37).

After the historical chapters ΗΕνο presents thorough analyses οΓ the problemsconnected with the reform, and οΓ ΤΟΚ 's methods and capacities of successfullyexecuting the reform. Although the poIiIiC'uIaspects ofthe reform as an exponent ofAtatίirkismcould have been discussed more thoroughly, the book contains mostinιeresIing observations such as the statement that "strong nationalist feeling isexpressed ίη wOIds Iike .,Omurge" (οΙ'. cit., 94). Ifwe may add a similar observation,ίι is raIher typical ofthe politica! development ίη Turkey that whiIe iIerici andgeriC'i,soIcu and .,agc/,devrimci and IU/ucu, all notifying exIremes, are pure Turkish wOIds

45Η

accepted by everyone, any (JΖιurkςe replacement for Iihera/ has αοι been accepted.(Erkinci. which has been suggested as a repIacement, is almosI never heard.)Ηενυ (Ι954, 103-107) aI50 presents a most interesting sιudy of the possible

factors underlying the adoption ΟΓ non-adoption of neologisms. Although a greatnumber ofthe neoIogisms which ΗΕΥΟ labeΙs as "ηοι yet accepted" are ίη commonuse today, ίι ίε astonishing how relevanI his views stiII are.

STEUERWALD 1963 ί> the tirst of Ihe author's three-volume study οτι differentaspects of the Ianguage reform. Although he never conceals his personalconservative views and distrust ofthe whole reform movement, his presenιation ofthe history of the movement and of the problems around the reform efforts is, withίι. profound scientitical honesty and enormous documentation, most valuab1e. Thereader gets the impression that the author has followed the development from dayΙο day, especially ίη the 19308, and that ηοΙ even the smallest newspaper article οη

language problems has escaped his attention.Though being thoroughIy scientitic, his descήΡιίοηs of the intrigues ίη the earIy

years ofTOK's existence and ofIhe way Ihe ΟΓψιηίιοιίοη ΙΓίω ιο soIve its tasks ΟΓΟ

sometimes quite amusing: ,,(ΤΟΚ beriet) sich aufein UrhebeIrecht ... , aIs wiire sieein um den Absatz der eigenen Produkte besorgtes privatkapitaIistischesUnternehmen." (οΙ'. cit., 17.) When dealing with the Gune~-Di/ Ieor;'l·i. hisdiscussions ofthe <easonsfOIiIs promulgation and its connection with lhe historica!theories are interesting. However, he does ηοΙ refrain from expressing his contempIfOI the theory: "Oas Vorgehen der Mitglieder der Tίirkischen Sprachgesellschafterinnert lebhaft an das Verhalten eines Ourchschnittsschίilers, dem der Ρήmus derKlasse eine ίη ihrer Prob1ematik fesselnde, allerdings nicht ίiber das Hypothetischehinausgehende Ιόsuηg einer bestimmten Frage zugesteckt hat, der aber, aufgeru­fen, mit dieser Ιόsυηg nichts Rechtes anzufangen weiB,da ihm sein Wissensstandkeine Erkliirung erlaubt, und der sich ηυη mit viel Stimmaufwand aus derpeinlichen AιroίΓ. ziehen mΌChte." (Οι'. cit.. 30.)

His explanalions οΓ Ihe psychological reasons ΓΟΓ the tendency ofthe speakers toaccept words οΓ European origin (1'1'. 55--58) are valuable aIso from the ροίηι οΓ

view of general linguistics. However, more than the case with HEYO'S book, ίι isquite remarkable how many of the neologisms he Iabels as "grausam",..unverstiindlich", "Sprach-Monstrum" are ίη current use today.

2,4 LEVEND Ι972 is the third edition ofthe auιhΟΓ'sοήgίηaΙwOIkfrom 1949.TheΡΟΓΙ dealing with the years beIween 1949and 1972,which has been added ιο the lastedition, is disappointingIy smaII (1'1'. 460--535), and contains mostly reρorIs ofΤΟΚ 's scientitic wOIk and publication activities, together with information aboutIhe congresses and executive committees ofthe organization. Το a very Iittle extentthe auIhor touches υροη the connection between polίtics and Ianguage reform. Itseems that οη. ofthe aims ofthe bo"k is ιο present ΤΟΚ as favourably as possible,and Ihe rresentaIion lacks a thorough discussion of the views of the orρonents.

459

(Tbc auIhor was himselfgeneral secretary ofIhe organizaIion from 1951 υπιill960,

and presidenI from 1963 υπιίl 1966.) However, his descripIion οπ AIaIiίrk's

importanc'e for Ihe whole movement ίο interesting, and ίι ί. also significant that heconllel:II Ihe prosperity οΓ ΤΟΚ wilh il1creasing respec! ΓΟΓ AIιJ/urk's ideals, andexplains Ihe downfalI ofIhe movement (e.g. ίη Ihe Demokrat ParIisi peήοd) as Iheresult oflack ofrespect for Atatiίrk. Thus he descήbes the incidents ίη 1971, wheneventually the government was taken over by Nihat Erim (who had been a memberofTDK) ίη the following way:" ... fIrtlna dindi, _IAlIklar kesildi, yumulan ιδΖIΟΓ

aςιldI ν. Atatiίrk bϋιϋπ varIIAlyle kar~lmIzda caπΙaπdι." (Ορ, οίι., 532.)LεYENO'. work ί. extremely useful because ίι gives a most detaiIed ρίοωΓΟ of Ihe

language conditions and attempts ιο simplify Ihe laπguage ίη the periods before IheRepub1ic. WiIh great erudition he goes through Ihe different periods of Turkishliterature, all the way from the intrusion of Ihe first Arabic and Persian words, buIfocusing of course οπ Ihe language reform attempts from Ihe Tanzimaι peήοd

onwards.'" ΚΟΒΚΜλΖ (1963 and 1974) presents good ίπΙΓοί!υοιίοπ.ΙΟ the deveIopment ofthelanguage refoπn, wriIIen ίη Ihe elegant laπguage that always characterizes Ihisaμιhοr. She emphasizes Ihe necessity ofregarding the Ianguage movement as a wayιο preιerνo and re-establish the original ΓοβωΓΟ. ofIhe Turkish laπguage,and givesβΩ interesting inIroduction ΙΟ pre·repubHcan language movemenI. lη herdeScήΡtίοηofTOK's work, however, she ροίηιο ουΙ that the refoπn has been οηlΥ apartial success. This she ascribes ΙΟ Ihe fact that ΤΟΚ has ποι done the necessarylanguage research which should have formed Ihe basis for methodicaI purificaIionwork. ΚΟΒΚΜλΖ 1974 also contains a useful bibliography.

Among other general introductions ΙΟ Ihe language refoπn SoKOLOV 1970 andTACHAU 1964 should also be mentioned. BoSWORTH 1965, υΖΙΝλ 1980 and I'ERRY1985 also preιeπΙ va1uable parallels ιο the Persian reform movement, which seemsιο have been inspired by Ihe Turkish reform. The ίπλυοποοofIhe Turkish Ianguagerefoπn, ΟΓ, more correctly, ofIhe nationalist sentiments and refoπnattempts beforeAtatiίrk. οη Turkish laπguages ίπ the Soviet υπίοπ, ίο the subject of an article byBRλNO. (1966). Ηί. article ί. most instructive, and οοηιβίη. valuable biBliographi­cal hints ιο HIeraIure concerning Ihe deveIopmenIs οΓ Ihe different languages.

lη Ihis connecIion ίι can be menIioned an arIic!e by EREN (1975) IreaIing Ihequestion ofwhether Ihe laηguage reform has had any ίπλυοποο οπ Turkish relationswiIh Turkic languages and peoples outside Turkey ΟΓ ηοι. Α similar problem, Ihesignificanceofthe alphabet reform for Ihe disinIegraIion ofTurkish υηίΙΥ, ί. treatedby ζ:λΟλΤλΥ (1978).

DsMANOVA 1971 concentrates οη the Ianguage reform υρ to 1935, and gives agood ουιΗηο οΓ Ihe different views held by Τurkish intellectuals about the reform.ΚλΒλΙ 1978 descήbes the phases οΓ Τurkish ΙθηιυθΙΟ developmenI and Iheattempts ιο ''Iiberate'' ίι from "ΓΟΓοίιη οοουΡθιίοη" υρ Ιο the RepubHc. DlιλςλR1969 presents a brief synopsis οΓ the reform both ίη Τurkish and ίη English.

460

1

BASKAKOV 1975 describes the language ΡοΙίΟΥ οΓΤΟΚ, whose work he mainIyapproves οΓ, ονοη ίΓ he finds that Ihe effects οΓ the reform mostly have reached"nationalistic bourgcoise and intelligentia" and σοι quitc penetrated ίσιο tbcspeech οΓ common peopIe. (Ορ, σίι., 25.)ΤΟΚ 's own official descήΡιίοηs οΓ ίι. history and work ίη connection wiIh Ihe

30th and 40Ih aηπίνersaήes οΓ Ihe organizaIion also deserve to be mentioned: DilDevriminin 30 Υ/Ι' 1962 and Turk DίI Kurumunun 40 Υ/ΙΙ 1972. Besides the historicaIportrayaI οΓ Ihe organizaIion, these booklets (especially the latter οησ) conta.inuseful Hsts οΓ Ihe members οΓ ίι. execuIive commitIees Ihrough the years οΓ IΙο

existence. AKSOY 1982 and TURAN 1982 shouId also be mentioned asdocuments 01"the status οΓ Ihe organizaIion aI ίι. 50Ih anniversary.

2.5 Among the publications which concentrate οη special periods ίη thcdevelopment, a Iarge number ofstudies have been carried ουι οπ AIa/iίrk's role ίη

Ihe language refoπn. Especially inIeresIing are the discussions ofIhe reasons for thepromu!gation οΓ Ihe Giίne~-Dil teorisi and Ihe,way ίη which ίι was introduced. ΑοSTEUERWALO (1963,22) mentions, the circumstances around this Ροίπι are ratherobscure. Οηο οΓ Ihe main ροίηιο οΓ dispute ί. whether Atatiίrk ever beIieved ίη thcIheory ΟΓ whether he had ίι introduced jusI ίη order ΙΟ stop Ihe radical purists.KORKMAZ (1974,77) fervently decIines the idea that ίι was introduced as a means tostop continued language refoπn: ''VarlIAI ulus νο ΥυΓΙ varlIAI i1ο yogrulmus olan,kδklϋ bir ulusal bilin. νο uygar bir ulus yaratmak istiyen Atatiίrk gibi gir devletkurucusunun boyle bir kaςamaΥa ba~vuracagI tasavvur bile edilemez." (Ορ. ciI..78.)

lι ί. tempting Ιο regard the Iheory ίη connection with Ihe famous historicaltheοήes launched some years previously, whose main aim was ιο strengthen theΡήde and national feelings οΓ the younger generaIions. Αι the same Iime, TurkishwouId be Ihe ήchesΙ language οΓ the world ίΓ Ihe Iheory was ΙΓυΟ. This οήginal

view ί. defended by ΤΕΚΙΝ ίη a most interesting artic1e (ΤΕΚΙΝ 1973 =ΤΕΚΙΝ

1975).Οη the other hand, as shown by DILλςλR (1976), Atatiίrk had a natural interest ίη

language quesIions. Τheοήes explaining Ihe οήgίn oflanguage were ίη νοιυ. ίη the1920. and 1930s, and A/aIiίrk's acquaintance with Ihe Soviet philologist Marr ίη

1933, whose rather phantastic views on the origin oflanguage are well known, mayhave been a direct source οΓ inspiration for him. ERΤOP (1963) bήηgs valuab!einfoπnationabout AIaIiίrk'smeeIing wiIh Marr and other foreign philologists, anddenies that Ihe Giίne~-DiI teorisi was a pretext for stopping further Ρuήficaιίοη. lπ

βΠ inIeresIing article Οlιλςλβ (1963) seIs the Giίne~-Dil Ieorisi ίηΙο a widerlinguistical contex! and emphasizes Atatiίrk's interes! ίη such theories, wi!hou!however, giving a satisfactory explanation ofthe reasons ΓΟΓ the choice ofjust thisIheory. DILλςλR 1975 ί. a sIudy οΓ the connection beIween the hίstοήcaΙ thesis andthe languagctheories, and ί. ΓυlΙ οΓ new, in!eresting deIails.

461

ίλΝκυτ (1963) draws an interesting, lίνίηg ρίοιυΓ. of AIuιiιrk's workingΡήncίΡles as a Iinguist, presenting a 10Ι of intriguing, hitherιo unknown historicalιletails. It becomes evident from his article that Atatiιrk himself without doubtbelicνed ίη thc thcory, but also that he laΙer lοοι his beliefand abandoned ίι beforehis dcath, δzoίJ (1963) teHs about AIaIiιrk's own efforts Ιο tind Turkishclyιnologies for Europcan words. κω (1975) defends Ihe langυage reform as a_Iizalion of AIaIiιrk's nationalist ideals.Onο oflhc most ΡυΖΖlίηι details conccrning Ihc promulgation of the Giιnef-DiI

teorΊSiis thc part played by the Auslrian philologisl who usually ί. said ιο have givenAtaturk thc wholc idca by sending him a IΥpcwήιιeη copy ofhis otherwise unknownthesis "Psychologic dc quclques elemenls des langues turques". This Ihcsis ίο said το

havc contained almost aH Ihe elements of the subsequent Giιnef-Dil teorlsi. Thisporιoη, however, secms Ιο be οο obscure that nobody even knows how his nameshould bespclt: DILΑςΑR 1963,47: Kvergic, Εκτορ 1963,87 and ΙενεΝΙ> 1972,431:Kft'rgic. ΤεΚIΝ 1973, 113: KvergiI(·h. STEUERWALD 1963,88: K,ergl( (1), KORKMAZ1963,67: Kvergii:. Ktvergii:, 1974,75: Ktvergtc.1t ίο puzzJing that he ί. ηοΙ mentionedb'y ΤλΝκυτ (1963) at all.

1.6 Thc langυagc rcform and ίι. causes are treated from an interesting historicalPόlnt of view by KISSLING (1968). The author regards language Γονοlυιίοη. (ofwhich, howeνer, hc gives ηο other examples) as a kind of Argotver/olgung, causedby thc desirc Ιο abandon the language and way of spcech characteristic of thedethroncd ruIcr class ΟΓ overthrown cultural·elite. Ηο characterizcs the tight againstforcign words, being οχροηοηΙ. of an epoch, as a verIical tight, contrary Ιο "realΡυήsm" which ί. hοήιοηΙal. Ηο ίο quite right ίη ροίπιίπι ουΙ that ονοπ words ofρυ.. Turkish οήιίη are sometimes regarded as "reactionary" because they areassociatcd with the unwantcd "argot". Ηί. exampIe ίο the oblique forrns of theρroηουη ο likeantn for onun, which have become subject Ιο a "Damnatio memoriaegegcnίίber dcn osmanischen Typica'"

Wc may add that a similar kind of "Argotverfolgung" ί. visible ίπ the avoidanccby thc ρυήsts ofwords Iikedahi, ίπ ορίιο ofits Turkish origin, and that sdmetimes anewkindofan "ΚΓΚΟΙ" secms Ιο be visiblee. g. ίπ the υοο ofimdifor simdi(cf. SAYILI1978, 448), ιiιm for Mιiίn, variants preferred by the most extreme Ρυήsιs. Thecmcrgenccofan aydtnIarargosu ί. mcntioncd by ΤεΚIΝ (1973, Ι 18), and with morccxamplcs by ΒΚΕΝοεΜοεΝ, who cmphasizcd thc political aspcct: "Α puzzling, butquitc characιcήstίc fcaturc, ί. that spcakcrs with lesser linguistical consciousncssoften υse radical ncologisms beside ρυΓΟ Ottomanismsjust because some words likeoIαιuιk, oΙαsιJιk, saptamak etc. havc become politicallabels uscd by pcople whowant Ιο charaCΙcήιe themselvcs as leftist, progressive, and inteHectual. Thc υse ofnew words instcad of old ones has more and more become a politicaI question."(BRI!NDEMOEN 1978,446.)

462

_..~

3 Arguments for and against the language reforrn

3,1 The necessity of a reforrn of the OtIoman language was widely rccognizcdονοπ ίη the lasι ccntury. Αο official OtIoman had become uninteHigible ΙΟ thelayman, ίι was obvious that somcthing had ιο be done ίη order το bήng the wήΙΙeη

langυage close ιο the common vemacular. There was lίttl. disagrecmcnt about theροίπι that Arabic and Persian grammatical constructions and olher forcignimporlations that could easily be replaccd by mcans oflhe Turkish language itself,ΙίΓΟΙ would havc Ιο be thrown away. Αι this ροίυι common agrecmcnt οιορο.

The other reason for a rcforrn ίο ιο be secn ίπ conlext wilh Turkish nationalism­the desire ιο Iiberate the langυage from the yoke of forcign words, from foreignimpcriaIism, οο ιο spcak, ίο an imρortant factor also ίη the languagc reforrns ofother countries. This ίο νΟΓΥ clear from the Ataturk quotation above (2.1).

However. also from a nationalist ροίηι of view, regarding IhemseIves as theimpcrialists, some Turkish authors found that the Arabic and Persian elements ίπ

the language were ποΙ borrowings ΟΓ elcments which by themselves had pcnctratedίπιο the Turkish language - quite οη the coΠ~ΓKΓY, thcy were conquered words.Among the ορροηοπι. of the reforrn especiaHythe members of Tiιrk DiIini Koruma"e Geliftirme CemίγeΙίmake this cIcar: "Tίίrk ordularι bir elde klll~, bir elde me~'ale.

gίrdίkleή yerlerden bunlarι (Ιο. thc Arabic and Pcrsian words) iAreti vcya odiin~

almamI~lardl ki ... ΒίΓ ~~ίι 'Harp ganimeti' idi bunlar. BeAendiklerinialιp dίΗcήnekattIlar - bir giizcl pΓoηsesί harcm1eήnc kattIklan gibi". (ZORL1J'ΠJNA ίη Tiιrk DiIil(in 11, 107.) "Tiirk~yi, Tiirk vatanI gibi milΙile~ιίήlmί~ kclimclcrdcn oksίίzbιrakmak. diipedίίz, vatandan bir par~a vermek kadar yanII~tιr." (ΒλΥΚλΚΟλΚ­

OOLU ίη Tiιrk DiIi l(in 111, 93.) " ... Tiirk~nin sahibi oldugu bίrφk .oΙIOΓ,

fethedilmi~ vatan toprakIari gibi, fethcdilmi~ kelimelerdir." (ΒλYRAKDAROOLU ίπ

Tiιrk DiIi l(in lν, 10.)This view ίο aIso expressed, though ίπ a rather moderate way, by the weH-known

author ΒΑΝΑΚΙΙ ίπ his anthology ofessays οπ language questions (ΒλΝΑΚΙΙ 1972).Ηο states that Turkish ίο an "imparatorluk dili", and that "Tiirk olmu~ kelimeler... veriImez" (ορ. cit., 36). Based οη rather weak scientitic grounds, οηο ofhis mainarguments against the reforrn ί. that the new words introduccd by TDK are υιlΥ,

"~irkin, ahenksiz". Nevertheless, his book ίο quite interesting rcading, prcsentingthe conservative views of a pcrsonality deepIy rooted ίη the old school, and whoseknowledge of Arabic and Persian ίο evidenlly a natural ρaΓI of his culturalbackground.

Ιπ the light ofthe relative succcss the langυage reforrn ί. enjoying now after morethan haIf a ccntury, ονοπ among ίιο opρonents,who ιο somc extent unconsciouslyadopt more and more neologisms (cf. δΖοεΜIΚ 1976,95), ίι ί. quite astonishing 10sce modern books opposed ηοl only 10 the language reform, but ονοη Ιο thcalphabet rcforrn,likc ΕΜlκΟΟιυ 1977, which is a coHcction ofarliclcs by diffcrcntauthors, mοsΙ of Ihcm probably originally publishcd quilc a number of ycars ago,

463

fe~ently ΡΓΟΡθμιίπι Ihe usefulness ofthe Arabic alphabet - "lsl3m yazIsI", as ίιίι called -,--- and cήtίcίΖίπg the way ίπ which ίι has been abolished. The last 80 pagesofthc book deals with "Nurculuk" and the views expressed by "Risale-i Nur" οπ

thc excellence of the Arabic aiphabet.

3.1 The arguments for and against the language reform are approximately thesame today as when the reform was first introduced. The arguments for ίι, the mostimportant of which we have referred to above, have ιο a great extent beenpropagated byΤΟΚ itself through hundreds of minor publications, broadcastings,and through the monthly review Tiίrk Dilί. Especially useful are the publicationspresenting "a~Ik oturumlar" ΟΓ other kinds of debate, where ποΙ οπlΥ the officialview ofTOK ί. presented, but also ιο a certain extent views of the opposition, likeDiJdι! iJzI~~m~nin s,nIrι ne olmalIdιr 1962,DiI devrimi iίzerine Ι 967, Giίniίmiίzde TiίrkdIII 1974, DiI yaz,Ιarι ι-π 1974.

:., The opposition has expressed ίι. views through dilferent publications. ηοι being50weII organized as ΤΟΚ. However, Tiίrk KiίItiίriίniί Ara~Iιrma Enslίliί.•iί (founded

.ίπ 1961), which publishes the monthly Tiίrk KiίItiίriί. graduaIIy became one οΓ theinain organs for the opposition during the 60's and 70's. Tiίrk DiIi lςin 196(,..-68. asix volume anthology of articles, mostly directed against the language reform as'ρerformed by ΤΟΚ, was also published by this instiιute.

The main arguments of the opposition Ιο ΤΟΚ (υρ Ιο 1983) were as folIows:Ι, The laπguage reform has the effect that the ties with the past are cut off. Ιι has

created a generation gap, and parents and'chiIdren do ηοι understand οπ. anotherany more.

2, Language development hashecome a task of party politics.3, Words are created at random without any systematical methods, and then

forced ίπιο the language, which suffers from this treatmenΙ

4. The members of ΤΟΚ have ηο background ίπ Iinguistics.Some of these views have been treated above, others wiII be discussed ίη the

following chapters.Aκsoy 1975ιίν.. a summary ofthe policy folIowed by ΤΟΚ and the results the

organization has achieved. Αι the same time his book ί. θΩ effort Ιο refute thearguments ofthe opposition. AKSOY 1969ί. a more direct attack οη the opposiIion.80th the reformists and their antagonists unforΙUnately have the tendency ΙΟ usethe most extreme examples οΓ the other part's ideals ίη their arguments. Thus thereformists present the most uninteIIigible examples οΓOttoman phrases, while theopposition mocks the most hopeless examples οΓ (jΖΙiίrkςe, as ifIhere were nothingbetween the extremes, and as ίΓ Ihere was nothing positive ίη the reform movementat .11.

As ΚλθλΜλΝιlΟΟιυ asserts ίη his IiΙΙΙ. book about the development οΓ theTurkish language: ''Οίl konusunda yazIlan yazIlarda ο kadar degi~ik ve bazen ο

kadar tuhaf fikirler ίleή sίirϋlmekte, kar~I1IklI IartI~malarda konudan ο kadar

.._......,...

uzakla~IlmaktadIr ki, bunlart misalIerle gosIermeye kaIksak, ya kitabI bir misli ν.faydasIz bίiyϋltmek, ya da θΥΓΙ bir kitap yazmak gerekir." (ΚλθλΜλΝιιοοιυ 1972,120.)

..LinguisIicaI racism" ί. one οΓ the standard accusations, mostly from theopposition. The desire ιο find a scapegoat for the disadvantages οΓ the reform hasresuIted ίη contenIions that the reform was instίgated through the "subversiveinfluence οΓ Tatars, Kazan Turks, Donmes and Cretans, who wanted ιο makelθΠΒυθΒ. anarchy" ίη Turkey (cf. STEUERWALD 1963, 20). Lisani ιrkζIlIk,

"kafarasyon" have been among the common terms οΓ abuse against ΤΟΚ, υοι ιο

mention accusations οΓ communism: "ΒίΓ insanID ne derece solcu olduj\unuanlamak ί~ίη yazdIj\I ν. konu~tuj\u kelimelere dikkat edeceksiniz. Ej\er hi~

anlayamayacaj\InIz kadar uydurma kelimelerle konu~uyorsa, ona tereddίitsίiz

Komiinist diyebilirsiniz." (ERER ίη Tiίrk DiIi I~'ίπ π, ρ. 179.)Οη the other hand, Iheuncontrolled impact οΓ European words is by both sides cήtίcίzed as caused by"milIiyetsiz, dii~ίincesiz, kanI bozuk bir takIm kimseler", ΟΓ "milli dile dej\ervermeyen bir takIm saygIsIzlar, miIIiyetsiz zίippeler, kanI ν. duygusu bozukkimseler". (STEUERWALD 1963, 120.) ..

3.3 One issue which is Ihe subject οΓ a great dispute beIween ρuήsts andmoderates. who all ΡήηcίΡiιllΥ agree Ihat some reform οΓ the Ottoman languagewas needed. was, and sIiIIis today, ιο what extent the replacement offoreign wordsby Turkish words should be carήed ουΙ. Ζ. GQKALP, as a part οΓ his nationalistideology, expressed views οη this ροίηι showing a deep understanding andconsideration for linguistic problems, Stating that the most ill.adapted foreignelements ίη Turkish are those that need knowledgeofArabic and Persian ίη order Ιοbe used correctly. he suggests that these should be thrown ουΙ οΓ the language. butοη the other hand that words οΓ foreign ΟΓίιίη used commonly also ίη ρopular

language. shouId be kept, since they are reckoned as Turkish. The methods hesuggests for introducing new words are basicalIy the same as 50me ofthe methodsfolIowed by ΤΟΚ laιer. Ηί. views οπ scientific terminology are a bit more vague,suggesting that as a principle Turkish words should be used. but that Arabic andPersian terms could be kept ίη a ''ιerkiΡsiΖ'' way, i.e. without using foreigngrammatical elements, and also that some Iechnical and professional terms could betaken from "ecnebi IisanIar", i.e. European 1anguages. (cf. GOKALP: Τiίrkςuιugiin

e.•a.•/arι. e.g. Jstanbul 1975, 122-123.) This last ροίηι is discussed by 'MER (1976,77). For an interestingdiscussion OfGQKALP's viewsand theirapplication, ΟΓ rathernon·application by ΤΟΚ, Ι would Iike ιο draw the attention Ιο llMURTA$ 1965and1976. These works contain at the same time a broad introduction ιο thedevelopment οΓ the Turkish language through the different epochs of OttomanIiteraΙUre. GQKALP's views have al50 been treated by MANSUROOLU (1954) andΚλΡΙλΝ (1976). GOKALP has for a lοπι time been regarded by ήght.wίηg groups ίη

Turkey as the true father of Turkish nationalism, and his views οπ moderatelanguage policy have formed their basis of opposing ΤΟΚ 's radical Ρuήsm.

464 :\0 Ha1...i 465

3λ lη the ferνent argumentations about how far the reform movement should go,oneofthe main questions has been Ιο what extent ίι is possible and advisable Ιο givea langwige a cenain course by artificial means. lη connection with this, someinterestίng views have been presented οη what a laηgυage actually is.ΒΥ means ofvery concrete cοmΡaήsοηs,many ofthe opponents ιο ΤΟΚ assert

that language is a living organism that will be killed by ΙΟο much ill-treatment ΟΓinιcrferencefrom outside ("mudahaIe "). If elements ofa laηgυage die, this happensbccause the laηguage itself wants ιο get rid of them. These views frequently areassened ίη different articles ίη Turk Dili l{in Ι 966-----{,S. Οη the other hand, anumber ofthe most eager purists express views based οτι the same way of thinking:"Soysuzla~aya ΥϋΖ tuΙθη agacl budamaz mIslnIZ, a~Ilamaz mIsInIz? ΥabanclοιlΒπη salgInIndan kurtarιp giibre ile beslemez misiniz? Sulamaz mIsInlz?lnsanoglu hi~ bir «organizma»YI kendi kendine geli~meye bIrakmamI~tIr. Οil ί~ίη

bunu nasll isteyebiliriz?" AKSOY asserts ίη one of his apologies for ΤΟΚ (DiI,..ιJr.rίmί Ozerine 1967, 205.).

HEYO'S following remark is very much ΙΟ the ροίηι, placing the mentality behind. such remarks ίηΙο a wider context: "The fervent belief ίη the omnipotence of the.human will and ίη the creative elan ofthe revolution gave rise ιο the conviction thatlanguage, like θηΥ other social institution, could be reshaped according Ιο a

'p'reconceived ρIΒη". (HEYD 1954,21.), lη a fine liιιIe book, γ'ϋCΕΙ (1968) penetrates deeper ίηΙο the mechanism of

language and ιήes Ιο show the necessity of knowledge of theoretical linguistics ίη

order Ιο do constructive language work:After first reproducing with great objectivity the views of the opponents Ιο the

language reform. he proceeds 10 refute their arguments one by one. Το theargument that grammatical and etymological research ofthe Turkish laηgυagehasreached Ιοο short ΙΟ serve as a foundation for interfering with the Ianguage, heanswers that etymology is a reminiscence from the lasι century, and ιogether withgrammar. ίι has nothing Ιο do with science. Linguistics ίη the sense OfOESAUSSUREis the scienceραΓ exallenl'e because ίι descήbes the deeper functions ofa laηgυage.

Because nobody involved ίη the Turkish laηgυagereform, either as a protagonist ΟΓas Βη opρonent. knows theoreticallinguistics, the assertations that θη etymologicaldictionary and a grammar should be made before the Ianguagecan be reformed, areirrelevant. Thus, the Clθί~ that οηlΥ "diI muhendisleri" should work ίη a "diI[abrikasI" is 10 be refuted. (This last points ha rightfully been criticized byKORKMAZ 1974,99.)

Although his arguments are unclear and slightly demagogic οη some νίΙθl points,his views οη the nature of Ianguage and his cήΙίcίsm of strange aΙΙegοήespresentedίη order 10 justify ΟΓ condemn artificial laηgυage development, are quite sound.Nevertheless, he seems Ιο acccpt Ata(s rather demagogic declaration: "Οίli

degiιιίrmegekalkan biz degiliz ki! Βυ dil, en θ~θIII ΥϋΖ Υιldaηbeή boΥυηθ degi~iyor.

Nί~ίη degi~iyor? ΒίΓ ki~i oyle dilemi~ de buyurmu~, οηυη ί~ίη mi degi~iyor? ΟlυΓ mu

466

......,..

oyIe ~y? Yίiz YIldanberi boΥυηθ degi~iyorsa, demek ki bir sιkIntιsl νετ, kendikendine yetmiyor, kendini begenmiyor; sιη'Γlθrι dar geliyor da οηlθΓI geni~letmek

istiyor." (Quoted by Υϋσει, 1969, 21.)Against the view that the old literature is ηο longer understood by the younger

generation, ΥϋCΕΙ's οηlΥ argument is Ihat all languages change - a very badargument indeed. Οη the whole. he shows υο understanding of the views of themoderates, who find the existence of some foreign words useful for e.g. stylisticνθΓίθιίοη, and characιeήΖes their views as "masaI" (ορ. οίι., 81).

Some ofthe essential ροίιιιε ίη ΥϋCΕΙ's views have been very successfully persuedand ρυΙ ίηΙΟ a frame of modern linguistic ιheοήes by IMER (1976). Although herbook is θη apoIogy for the language reform and few ofthe weighty arguments oftheopponents are refuled (e. g. the cultural gap created by the reformis ηοΙ treated θΙ

all), Ι would characιeήΖe her work as one of the best dealing with the Ianguagereform.

The author introduces a new perspective ίηιο the debate, comparing Ihe Turkishlaηgυagereform with similar reforms and lang~geplanning ίη other cουηιήes.Shefirst divides all language changes ίηΙο degi~me (ηθtuΓθl changes caused byphonological, morphological factors etc.) and geli~me (change caused by externalfactors like social, cultural, histoήcal.and geographical factors and influences fromforeign laηgυages.) She characιeήzes laηgυage reforms, ίη general, as geIi~e

caused by nationalist movement and the need Ιο form new words and terms for newconcepts brought forth by cultural and social progress.

Then, describing some of the methods used Ιο creale new words ίη differenlcountries, she proceeds 10 Ireating the German, Ηυηgaήaη. Hebrew, andNorwegian language reforms. However, although she is quite right thatnationalism is the main cause ίη the development of these reforms, she highlyoverestimates Iheir ability 10 be used as parallels ιο the Turkish reform. If theTurkish Ianguage reform had been carήed ουΙ according Ιο the ΡήηciΡΙes of θηΥ ofthcse reforms, ίι wouId have been much more limited than ίι has been. ΟΓ the resuItwouId have been - as the case is ίη Norway today - the existence of two officialIanguages.

The fact that the German language reform cannot be used a a parallel, is shownvery clearly by STEUERWALO (1963, 34). And Ι think ίι is a quite relevant argumentιο mention that even if Nynorsk. the Norwegian laηgυage based οη dialects, is asuperb Ianguage for poetry and IiteraIure, the N.vnorsk-speaking news-readers οη

radio and television even today have 10 use a lοt of Anglicisms and Germanismsfrom the Iraditional Oanish-Norwegian language ίη order ιο express almost θηΥthought related ιο such fields as technol0gy, finance, ΟΓ ΡOlilics.

However, IMER does ηοΙ press these parallels, and is of course quite ήghΙ ίη

stating that the dimensions ofa Turkish reform would. as a ηθΙυΓθl consequence ofthe state ofthe pre-reform language. be much greater than ίη the laηgυages given asexamples.

467

Ιη herdiscussion ofwhether ίτ ίο possible ΟΓ οοι Ιο interfere with the langυage andreform ίι,. she νΟΓΥ rightly asserts that this question becomes clear from theextent ιο

which the new words are accepted (49). She also suggests that the ρυΓίοιο should actνeτy carefully, and .that criticism against neologisms mainly pertains ιο wordsintroduced from dialects and other Τurkish languages ίη the early period of thereform movement, and that the tendency today ίο rather ιο create neologisms basedοη roots living ίη the Ianguage itself(op. οίι., 51). Jι seems, however, that she forgetsthat many ofthe words οοτ οο commonly accepted (Iike olanak. olaSIIIk.neden) alsobeIong ιο this group. She also seems ιο make a gross simplification of facts ίη

arguing ιΜι most people who oppose the language reform today, are αοι acιually

apίnst the idea of replacing foreign words by Τurkish ones, but only ορρο.. thewιsystematίc methods by which the reform formerly has been carried ουΙ.

The Ρήnciρles she establishes for a language reform ίη general, are:Ι. that the neologisms should easily be associated with other concepts inside the

'.ιι.ame semantic field (Iike "πι - anmak),2. that they should correspond as much as ρossible Ιο this concept (7),

. 3. that suffixes should preferably be productive, and,.. 4. that if ηο other way can be found, l0aη-Ιranslaιίons may be used Ιο someextenι

, ,If IMBR'S ρήηcίρles had been followed Ihrough the different stages ofthe reform,tbe reform would have stopped by itself very οοοη indeed.

The book ends with a concise description ofthe ίηιτυοίοπofforeign words ίπ thedifferent periods of Ottoman Τurkish, and a historical ΟΥηοροίο of the reform.ΤORKBR·KONYEL (1978) discusses the problems concerning language amend.

ments and reforms, and language as a 1001 of expression, οη a more philosophicalbasis.

.. Τhe methods

4.Ι Now. ίη contrasI ΙΟ IMER'S principIes described above, ίι may be interesting Ιο

havea l00k at the ρήηcίρles and methods the reformists have acΙUally followed, andthe liIeraIure dealing wiIh them.Τhe various merhods foJlowed byΤΟΚ ίπ finding Τurkish substiΙUIes for foreign

words have usually been the following:a) Suggesting the υχ of Τurkish synonyms already existing ίη Ihe written

laηgυage: ΥΙI and ηοΙ 'ρπρ, DlUm and ποΙ νρ/αι. Τhis has provoked relatively Iittlecήtίcism, except arguments stating that the possibility ofstylistic νΒΓίΒιίοπ ίο lοsι ίη

tIιis way: DANI$MEND ίη T",k Ωίlί Ι"ίπ IV, 51, quoted by ΥϋCΕL 1968, 51, FELEK ίηT;;'k Ωίlί Ιςίπ ΙΙ, 121, quoted by YOCEL 1968, 51, BANARLt 1972,250-255 etc.

It ωη be mentioned that many of rhe earliest loan-words ίπ Τurkish ίη Ihisconnection are regarded as Τurkish, ormaybe their foreign origin has just escapedthe βΙΙοηιίοη of the reformers: Τhus hudut has been replaced by .'·ιπιr, which ίο a

468

Greek word, and ama has yielded ίιε ground ιο Ihe οήgίηalΙΥ Persian kOr. (Τheορροείιίοπ between kor 'weak-sighted' and ama 'blind' sometimes found ίπ olderlanguage has thus disappeared.)

b) Collecting words from differeιu Anatolian dialects: gorkem for ihtifam. gozgufor αΥπα. Although σοι used very much today, this method ίο recommended bywriters Iike YOCEL (1968, 18). However, cοηsίdeήηg the contempt with whichAnatolian dialects usually are regarded by "educated people", and a1so themonopoly Istanbul Τurkish enjoys as a schoollanguage, ίι ίο ηο wonder that theintroduction of dialect words ίο regarded as "kiiyluleftirme" by many speakers.

c) Reviving obsolete Τurkish words: konuk for misafir, gorenek for απΌπρ.

d) Introducing words from Τurkic languages outside Τurkey οτ other Altaiclanguages: ulus (Mongolian, < Old Τurkish uluJ. ίη which form ίι ίο given byTarama Dergisί, 531) for milieI, αΙα (from different Τurkish laηguages, probably a"ρήmares Lallwort") for <ρΙ. peder. Words ofthis type, and especially their οήgiη,have vividly been discussed. This method was, however, abandoned by ΤDK itself.

e) Enlarging the semantic sphere of already existing Τurkish words, e. g. bygiving an abstract meaning ιο words οήgίηalΙΥs;gnifying objects, ΟΓ by introducingword-forms already having grammatical suffixes as new paradigms: (evirmek Ίο

ΙUΓη round' -+ 'translate' (for Iercume eImek), αlaπ 'field, cleaήηg' -+ 'sphere, field'(for saha), neden 'why' -+ 'reason, cause' (for sebep), olas. ΊοΙ ίι be' (actually the oldOttoman fuιure ίη -As/. which may be used both as a participle and as a finite form)-+ 'probable' (for muhtemel), albeni 'attractiveness' for cazibe.

From a Iinguistic ροίηι ofview ίι ίο unnecessary ιο ροίηι ουΙ the dubious qualityof the lasι-meηtίoηed examples. Ιη his aρology for neden. AKSAN maintains thatthere can be ηο objection Ιο υοίΠΒneden as a nominative ηουη, as there already οΧίοΙ

expressions Iike IoprakIan kap. ateften gomlek (AΚSΛN 1976,38). Ι must admit that Ι

fail Ιο see the parallel between these examples and neden.Τhe introduction ofneologisms.like the lasι ones also has syntactical implications

and as such may really be called examples ofmuιiahale.Neden cannot be used ίη theablative. For bu sebepten 'for this reason' ίι ίο necessary ιο say bu nedenle. lη thesame way, although olanaklI (for mδmkjjn), formed as an adjective from olanak(ίmkάπ). figures ίπ the dictionaries, ίι ίο almost ηονοτ used. For expressing "ίι ίο

possible that ... ", a periphrastic expression like " ... olanag, var" ίο necessary.Such syntactical changes do ηοι seem ιο have been sιudied systematically yet, cf.7,Ι,

f) lntroducing Iiteral Τurkish translations for foreign terms: bakan 'minister' forπazιr. πemδlςer 'hygrometer', Demi,yolu for fδmendifer, "chemin de fer" seems Ιο

be older than ΤDK.

g) Giving foreign words a more Τurkishphonetic appearance: avukat 'advocate',hukδmet (for hUkδmeI). Ιη words Iike diyelek and okul popular etymology seemsalso ιο have exercised some influence, (ΜΥ explanation of okul as being formedbasically οη "Ccole" would be denied by ΤDK, which contends IhaI ίι ίο deήνed

469

directly from okιunak.) Ενοη ί' the GWιe~-Dil teorisi has been abandoned manyyean agp, ίι probably was the excuse (οι introducing such words ίτι the fίιιΙ place. Ιι

may be mentioned that the phoneticaI resemblance between neologisms and the oldwords they are introduced ιο replace, ίη some cases may have facilitated thea=pιanc;c ofneologisms, like sanmak (cf. zannermek) and kαn, (cf. kanaar and theadjcctίve kanI).

Although the shortening of 10ηΒ vowels ίη foreign words ίι an old feature ίη thedialccιs, the alphabet reform must be the main reason why the same development ίι

now found Ιο a very great extent ιτι educated speech (cf. 7.1 beIow). Thus, forms likehukίίmet now more οι less reflect the actual pronunciation.

Ιη this group we can aIso incIude words of Arabic οιίΒίη with Τurkishdeήνaιίοηal suffixes instead οΓ ίηηοι flection, i~Iikak: haller for αhναΙ, haberle~me

for muhabere. The "freezing" οΓ Arabic broken plurals, making ίι now possibIe ιο

say e.g. tucearlar, ίι aIso a pan of the same development.h) Making compounds. These compounds have been formed ίη different ways,

some ofthem quite ίη agreement with grammaticaI ruIes (ΙίΙιο ba."mevi for marbaa),. some ofthem apparently ίη rather unusual and dubious ways like dilbilim. gokbilim"witbout any possessive suffix (but dilbίlgΊSi), and $ekerbank. lt seems that someelements like -bilim have entered the class of suffixes where e. g. the Persian -hane

'already beIonged (cf. pasrahane).Now, for compounds lilιe Demlrbank. $ekerbank. Pamukbank ίι can ofcourse be

argued that the fίιιι element may be regarded as an adjective denoting material(although the banlιs ίη question are probably ηοΙ made of ίιοη, sugar, οι cottonreιpeetiveIy), but there also οχίιΙ names lilιe Sίίmerbank, Eribank. The mostprobable explanation may be that these names are formed ίη analogy with simiIar"ungrammatical" denominations for features ίη Istanbul's cosmopolitan commer­cial life, like Απα,Ι"Ια Ήαπ. /zmir Ρα/α.,. which without doubt have EuropeanmodeIs. KORKMAZ' examples Ιο justify the phenomenon (KORKMAZ 1974, 73, cf.also ΗλΤIΒΟΟιυ 1967 and SAVlLI 1978,452), \ίΙιο αΙιιπ kalem. y,ldιrIm reIgraf, dipkom~u, kurt adam. seem Ιο be explicable ίη other ways, and her examples, from OldTurkish ΙίΙιο TίJrk Budun are ηοι very relevant, as these reflect a language periodwith other ruIes Γοι the use ofthe possessive suffix (cf. Κ. GRONBECH: Der Turkl.,eheSpraehl>au Ι, Copenhagen 1936,92-101). Beside., ίι ίι possible today still Ιο sayTurk α.,ker, TίJrk bαγαn.

lη the formation of compounds, pιofίxoι- a morphological class principally ηοι

οχίιιίηι ίη the Turkic languages - have been used. Although there incontestablyexist prefίxed words ίη Ottoman (ΙίΙιο ίςοκΙοο, bα~ςavu~), the purists have used this

'device Ιο an exaggerated extent: onsoz 'preface' for mukaddlme, e~gudum

'coordination'. sonek 'suffix', ongormek for derpi~ ermek, 'foresee'. Ιη the same way.beyneIrniIeI'intemational' was first replaced by arslulusal, then by the more gram­matίcaI uJuslararαsI. This probIem has exhaustively been treated by DENV (1938),Ιι ίι signifίeant that οηlΥ a few of the compounds mentioned by him ιιίΙΙ ΒΙο ίη use.

ί) Deήνaιίοη by means οΓproductive (aral,kslz for muIIαslf) οι unproductive (απ,

for harιra) suffixes οι suffixes from other Ianguages (gorev for vazi[e).The two classes οΓ neologisms mentioned lasι have been studied by SCHARUPP

(1978). He analyses very thoroughly the morphologicaI and semantίc aspecιs andproblems conceming the neologisms fonned with the suffixes -CXI, -mAn, -.ΑΙ,

-GAn!-GXn, -ιαΥ, -(Χ)ι, -Xm, and -πιΧ. He al50 presents 50me ίηιοιοιιίηΒ

views οτι composite and "prefixed" neologisms. Ηίι study gains depth and valuebecause ίι ί. based οτι socio-lίnguistic ΡήηcίΡles and famίlίaήΙΥ with Ianguageplanning.

Discussing the οήgίηs, οήgiηal connotations and tίeJds of use for each ιυtΊίx, hedescribes how Ihese suffixes have been used by the purists, and ίτι seνeral casesροίσιε ουι inconsistencies, e. g. ΙίΙιο deverbai nominaI suffixes like -(Χ)ι beingadded Ιο nominal stems (Iilιe orgίJr) by the ρuήsιs (SCHλRLIPP, 92). Ηίι treatment ofthe suffix -mAn ίι espeeially interesting because ίι clearly shows what casualelements can be decisive ίη modern Turkish language reform work. The old suffix-mAn ίη some Turkish words, e. g. ίη Turkme'!J..may be of Persian οήΒίη - at Ieaslthere ίι also a homonymous Persίan suffix. The resembIance with Englίsh man,German Μaππ was enough ιο make this suffix Hve again, coηsίdeήηg that man,Mann were οήΒίηΒllΥ "Turkish" words anyway: Alman-kιrmIzl adam (ορ. cit., 37­46). Maybe the existence of the French suffix -menr (which must have the sameIndo-European etymoJogy as Persian -mίin) ίη adverbs lίlιe direkman, oromarίkmanalso has had some etfect οη the "revival" of this suffix.

Ιη his treatment ofcompound words ScHARLIPP tries Ιο show that the existenceof Izajers, where the fίιoΙ element ίη many caseS (ιίΙιο καΥΓί-, sui-) could be regardedas kind of prefίx, has been signifίcant for the forming of "prefixed" neologisms.However, Ι do ηοι think this should be undersιood ίη the way that the compoundwords are calques directly οη the Arabic οι Persian quasi-compounds (except ίη thecase of αΓsιαlα.αl. which may have been calqued οη heynelmίlel as well asinIernarionaf). This ίι clear from the fact that most Persian "prefίxes" and Arabicizajeι-elemenιswhich ίη Ottoman may be regarded as "functional" prefίxes, likehUsn-, .u-. ιιαΥΓ-, adem-. lα-, πα-, bi-, have παΙ been replaced by any neologisticprefixes. (ft must, however, be admitted that many of thcse privative prefίxes maybe replaced ΟθοίlΥ by periphrastic expressions using the suffix -.,Χ:, and that acιuaIIya privative prefίx yad- once was introduced by the ρυιίιιι, even ifwith lίttle success[cf. SAYlLI 1978, 469-473].) Still ίι ίι more probab\e that the introduction of"prefίxes" was made directly ίη analogy with European models, as most of themseem ιο be calques of international words, Iike αIrbilinsel 'subconscious', απα}'αrι

'Urheimat" "~ιιMίίm 'coordination" etc. (compare SCHARLIPP 1978, 137).Some of the suffixes studied by SCHARLIPP, but also others, like -( Α)ς!-Χ\, and

-Α.Ι'. have been treated by ANTELAVA (1967, 1969),who Ροίηιι ουΙ alterations ofthefunctions of these originaIIy unproductive suffixes.ΑΝΤΕΙλνΑ 1970, οΓwhich Ι haveοηlΥ seen the dissertation summary, also contains a historical ΡΒΙΙ, but the main

47

eniphasis ί. οτι the methods used by ΤDK, especially the υ.. of non-productivesuffixes. Ιι should also be mentioned that this industrious Georgian specialiSI ου thelanguage 'reform has also published two mosl valuable dictionaries of neologisms(ΑΝ11ΙΙλνλ 1978, 1985).. The use of unproductive suffixes has also been sιudied by KORKMAZ (1978), who

cιpecially ρoints ουΙ inconsistencies and mistakes ίη neologίsms with the suffixes.χ",χand -sAI. She as50ns that the introduction of this lasΙ suffix ί. ίη many ca50sιuperfluous, and that ίι may lead ιο a structural change ίη the language. Τhus,insιead of dll hurrlyell ίι ί. now "modem" ιο say dllsef iizgurfUk. Her article alsocoηιaίηι sharpcriticism ofΤDK's unsystematic methods, which she proves Ιο havebeen based οη theoretically weak foundations.

Tbere ίι ηο lack of publications 10 answer such "accusations". AKSAN (1976)treats a greal number of criticized neologisms belonging Ιο ΙΓουρ ί) above, ίη anattempt Ιο show that they are ίη ηο opposition Ιο Τurkish rules ofword-formation.

:.Ofcourse ίι ί. quite possible Ιο find e..mples from older periods of the languagewhere normally deverbal suffixesare used denominally and vice versa, which AKSAN'then does Ιο justify certain neologisms, but his work nevertheIess gives ηο answer toIhe question of why marginal word-formation should be preferred as an examplefor forming neologisms instead of the normal one. Ηί. assertation that correct ΟΓIιncorrectword-formation ί. a question ofηο importance as loηg as the neologismsare accepted ί. of dubious value, especially as loηg as a great number of theneologisms he claims Ιο be ίη common use, have ηοΙ yet entered the vocabulary ofordinary speakers, but are rather confined ίο be used by people who deliberately υ..a puristic language.

4.2 lη the third part of his impressive three voIume sΙUdy SlΈUΕRWλLD (1966)deals with the methods used for replacing some ofthe most striking foreign Arabicand Persian elements ίη the old language, i.e. the nispel-i. the Persian and ArabicIza/et, and the α1/-ι te/slri (the connection of two Arabic ΟΓ Persian synonyms ΟΓ

antonyms with the ναν-ι mev.•ule. Iike medduι'e:lr). Α. a parl of the chapter dealingwith the ni.opet-i there ί. a discussion of the different denominal suffixes introducedby the reformers Ιο replace ίι. Α similar discussion ί. found ίη SCHARLIPP 1978,under the chapter deaIing with -.•ΑΙ(ρρ. 50-61). lι has been shown by SCHARLIPP'Sstudy that SlΈUΕRWλLD'sfollowing, somewhat resigned, statemenl ί. beginning 10

come true: "Immerhin ist die Moglichkeit nicht νοη der Hand Ζυ weisen, da6 sichdiejiingere undjiingste Generation durch Gewohnung an die Fachterminologie derSchulwissenschaften spiiter einmal mit diesen Bildungen abfindet oder νοη diesemSuffix (the suffix "r') stiirkeren Gebrauch macht." (STEUERWALD 1966,43.)

lη his treatment of the iza/et, SlΈUΕRWλLD has some most interesting remarks:about darbe-ihukumet he says that a mechanical transformation hukumet darhesl"wirkt etwas unbefriedigend, da der status objectivus der Βlιοη Ik. ίη οίηοη statusaubjectivus verwandelt erscheint" (ορ. cίι., 64), lη the same way, about devr-iάΙem

472

he remarks that the reason why the transformation άΙem devrlhas υοι been made,probabIy ίο that άlem would seem ιο be the subject, but also that άlem often ί. used"personalbegrifflich" (ορ. cit., 91). Ι partially agree with SlΈUΕRWλLD. Αι leasι ίη

the second example, a decomρosition of the well-known expression devr-i άΙemwould have the effect that the two elements would be regarded isolated from oneanother and would be associated primarily with their currenl meanings ίη thelanguage, "people, merriment" and "period, epoch" respectively, Τhus the newexpression άΙem devrlwould be rather unintelligίble,ΟΓ at 'east ηοτ easily associatedwith the meaning of ,"vr-I άΙem. With darbe-I hUkι'imet vs. hUkumet ιiαrbesi anotherexplanation ofthe phenomenon could be that the reason why hUkumet darbeslisαοιused, ί. ralher Ihe fact lhat the semantic field of ιiαrhe, "blow, stroke", has moveduway from a literal meuning and concenlraIed οη very few 50t phrases, so that ίι ί.

sufficient by il5Olf, even without the explanatory hukumet, ιο express a "coup(d'etat)".SlΈUΕRWλLD 1966 ί. rich οη such intriguingcomments, and at the same time ίι ί.

provided with a detailed index which makes iι a useful rerference book.

4,3 Some ofthe sharpest criticism ofΤDK CE>ncerns ίι. ill-conceived suggestionsof words that do ηοΙ have the capacity of replacing all the connotations of Iheforeign words,like egili.m for lerhlye: lι ί. imρossible ΙΟ say egllimfi(orha. If us ί. Ιο

replace akIf, ίι would ηοι be possible Ιο translate "an intelligent child" by usfu\'Ocuk, as Ihis already means "a well-behaved child". (Because us has surνived ίη

some contexts with a 50mewhat altered meaning, KORKMAZ 1978, 273.) Τhe fee1ingthat the old words have a more well-established and dignified value ί. understoodclearly from the indignant protest of an Istanbul 1ady: "Ben bayan degil,hanImefendiyim!"

Τhis ί. one of the questions treated by KORKMAZ (1972), presenting extremelysound viewsdeeply rooted ίη scholarly ways ofargumentation. She ροίηι. ουΙ thatone of ihe difficulties ίη making people accept the neologίsms ί. that the neologίsmsseldom have the same 50mantic conciseness as the old words, which may havedeveIoped and changed meanings from concrete objects ιο subtile, abstractconcepts through a lοηι span oftime (cf. also KORKMAZ 1974, 96-9ΙΙ), Her viewsοη the naιure oflinguistic devrim as opposed 10 evrlm, gefί~me, are al50 very much Ιο

thc ροίηι.

Among the great number of articles and publications dealing with the tnethodsused by ΤDK JUSIPOVA 1975a and 1975b deserνe special mentioning, TEMIR 1976presenls sound viewsοη what should be the basis for TDK's work. Reminding thercader that proper etymological and genera1linguistic sιudies οη Turkish are ratherfew, TEMIR ροίηι. ουΙ that TDK should work extremely carefully, and ηοΙ make aΓονοlυιίοη (ίhΙΙΙάΙ) ουι οΓ what was οήιίηΒIlΥ meant ΙΟ be a reform (Inkl/άΡ) ,

HONV 1949 conlains heavy and sometimea ονοη malicious criticism οΓ

neoIogisms, most οΓ which, however, later have become widely accepted.

473

, lη ίome cases vivid discussions have been made about isolated neologisms, e. g.δrnek and prnegin. which are asserted by BANARLI (1972, 148-154) το beArmenian: "ςίrkίn ve YIkIcI iirneιlin 'sδzcugu' ... uydurmacIlarIn gayr-, me~ru birφcuιudur." (ορ. οίι., 154,comp. SAFA 1970, 106.) However, as shown convincingIyby !LλΥΟIΝ 1973, the word όrnek ί. pure Turkish, ίι. original meaning being"knitting. pattem" (from όr-). (For the existence οι' a deverbal suffix -nAk beside-AnAk. cf. kasnak 'embroidery frame" der-nek 'assembIy" and ber-nek "cattlegiven by the owner Ιο somebody e1se Ιο be ιaken to the ΥαΥΙα" (dial., Trabzon, fromber-Ινer-). (cf. a1so AKSΛN 1976, 44--46. For another theory cf. EDIsKUN 1972.)

5 Results οι' the Reform

5.1 Interesting studies have been published οτι the results οι' the reform. !MER(1973) presents statistics οι' words used by different newspapers from 1930 untiI1935. grouped according to origin, and shows that while an average οι' 35% οι' thewords ίη 1931 were Turkish. this number had risen ιο 60.5% ίη 1965. The yearlypercentages given νΒΓΥ considerably according ιο the ροlίιίΟΒI cIimate ίη Turkeyιοοι year. Both the Gune~-Di/ ιeοrω and the Menderes period are represented by areduction ίη the percentage οι' Turkish words. The resu1ts οι' the statisticalexamination οι' the language used ίη periodica1s are more difficult Ιο interpret, andthe numbers given for different noveIists οι' course reftect a personal tendency

. towards puristic οι conservative Ianguage rather than a historical development.Thus some οι' the most recent novelists examined, Iike Suur Kema/ Yerkin 1962andAhmet Hamdi TanpInar 1961, show less Turkish words than was found ίη works οι'

Sαίι FaIk ίη 1936.Thus, the "ranking list" ofauthors given by IMER seems Ιο upsetexpectancy.

TEVRUZ (l975)carried out a thought-provoking sιudy, examining the percentageof words of different origins used by two newspapers οι' opposite political views,Cumhuriyer (left wing) and Terι'uman (right wing). As a material she has chosenartic1eswritten by different columnists throughout a week. The words which are theobject ofthe statistics. are grouped a "yenj", i.e. (jΖtϋrkςe words which have livingsynonyms of foreign origin, and "batl kδkenli" words which have Turkishequiva1ents. As this principle οι' grouping the words seems rather subjective. anetymo10gical grouping according Ιο the origin οι' al\ the words used wouldincontestabIy have been better. The result οι' the examination shows that the articlesfrom CumhuriyeI contain 8.3% new words and 0.74% Western words, whileTπcιϊmιιn has2.6% and 0.5% respective1y. However, ίι must be remernbered that ίη

these statistica1 surveys every word ί! counted as a new word every time ίι occurs,the frequency οι' occurrence ηοΙ being considered (cf. HEYD 1954, 100). Neither ί!

the number οι' lexical units ίη the different word groups established.This lasι probIem ί. eliminated ίη a rather polemic articIe by !ZOUL (1978), where

all the words ίη ΤΟΚ 's Τurkςe SόΖlϋk beginning with the leιιer α are examined.

474

After stating that 63.5% οι' the words are presented ίη the dictionary as Turkish,17.2% as Arabic οι Persian and 18% as Wesιem, he ρoints out that whereas a greatnumber οι' the words presented Β! Arabic, are stil\ used by "everybody", there areamong the "Turkish" words quite unacceptable neologisms used by "nobody".

Valuable sIatisIics ofTurkish words used by differenI authors. publications. anddictionaries, are found ίη AKSOY 1975, 86--97 and 1964, 71-77. δΖΟΕΜ1. 1976refers ιο smal\er invesIigations done by publicists, showing that even the languageof Sii/eγman Demire/. the leader οι' Ada/et ParIi!;i. a wel\-known ορροεται ofcontinued purification, ί! ful\ of purisms. δΖΟΕΜI. 1969, 60-62 has treated asimilar subject.

5.2 The results ofthe language reform are examined from another ροίηι ofview ίη

two articles by Ηι\ΕοίtΕΚ. ΒΥ means οι' complicated statistical methods andprobability computation Ηι\ΕοftΕΚ 1975 finds Ihat the number οι' Arabic andPersian borrowings used ίη a text ί! dependent οη the style ofthe text, and thus ί! astyle-differentiating element, whereas European borrowings are less definite ίη

ιοlΒιίοη Ιο the functional style οι' the text. Further, Β! the frequency of bothEuropean and Arabic and Persian words seem ίο increase proportional\y. ίι ΟΒηηοΙbe concluded that European borrowings are used as substiιutes for Arabic andPersian borrowings ίη general. However, the material examined by Ηι\ΕsΙtΕΚ ί.

rather smal\, and at leasΙ the Iast ροίηι seems ιο be liable Ιο discussion.Ηι\ΕsίtΕΚ Ι 977. tries Ιο find a difference ίη the frequency ofoccurrence of foreign

words ίη sρoken and written language, by means ofcomplicated statistical analysesaIso. Ηί! material is J. Ε. PIERCE: Τiirkςe Kelime SaYImI. Ankara 1964,which againis based οη maιerial of disputabIe representativity. Ηοιο Ηι\ΕοΙtΕΚ finds that thefrequency of European borrowings does ηοΙ differ much ίη sρoken and writtenlanguage, but that the differing frequency of Arabic and Persian words depends οηfunction rather than the opposition between spoken and written language. Theauthor also finds that lοχίοοl υηίι. of different 'ΙΥlο! οιο ηοι ίη a relation 01"substiιution. However, ίι must be kept ίη mind that the words examined by thcauthor are only those οι' comparatively high frequencies. lι ί! probable that astronger ΟΟΙΙΟΙΒιίοη between replacement of Arabic and Persian borrowings byTurkish words wouId rather be found by analysing words ofless frequency, both ίη

written and spoken language.Ιη ΒΩ interesting article presenting a synopsis of the language reform, current

reform work, and linguistic research ίη Turkey today, ΗλΖλΙ (1971) discusses theresult ofthe reform from different views. Presenting surνeys from 1955and 1960,heshows that frequency ofil\iteracy has changed very littIe between the two years, theΙΒΙΟ ofil\iteracy forpopulation 15years ofage and more being 61,4 ίη 1955and 61,9ίη 1960. Although ΒΩ increase οι' literacy a ριίοιί could have been expected Β! aresult of the language reform, there seem ιο have been other obstacles ιο thedevelopment. As ΗλΖλΙ ροίηι! out, the high il\iteracy figures are most probably a

475

coIιsequcnce of thc insufficicnt numbcr of schools and tcache". Thus, ΒηΥ

conncctiol) bctwccn the language rcform and thesc figurcs cannot bc establίshed.

Howcvcr, ίι should bc added that from the figures given ίη Turkiye /staIistikYιIlιΙι 1975and 1983,1 havc dcduced much more positive percentages for the years1965, 1970 and 1975, thc illitcracy ratc (for population 6 years of age and more,cxc\udίng thc "bilinmcyenlcr") being 51,2, 43,8 and 36,4% rcspectiveIy.

5.3 Thc attempt Ιο bήng thc wήιιen language closer Ιο the spoken one, whichwas οηο ofthc main aims of the reform movement, has incontestably succeedcd ιο agrcat extenΙ Οηο ofthe main reasons for the success, ί. ηο doubt the propagation ofncologίsms through most newspapers and broadcasting, which has been more οι

Icssvivid according ιο polίtical climate. [The radio Iecιures οη Ianguage subjects byΑΝΟλΥ (1975) and television lecιurcs by CJZD"MIR (Ι969a) are valuabIe examplcs oftbis kind ofactivity.J The conscious propagation through schools has of course alsobcen importanι Thc fact that the language reform has become a poIitical matter,has probably rcsulted ίη the acceptance ofmore neologisms rather than ίη splίtting

ιΊιο clcctors ίηΙΟ two groups, as neologisms frequcntly are adopted subconsciouslynoι οηlΥ by peoplc ηοΙ especially interested ίη language matters, but also, as shownabovc, by opponents Ιο the language reform., Ιι secms, howevcr, that the neologisms ηοΙ easily accepted are mostly those which

havc a foreign equivalent ίη common use, and especially neologisms lackingclcmcnts that can lead the user's associations Ιο the right semantic field. Althoughthc formcr tcndcncy Ιο ρυΙ thc old terms ίη brackets bcside the neologisms ί. nOwdccreasing, ίι ί. still quite common that words Iίke .,ΟΥαι and .,omut. which offer aminimal basis for association (especially because .,omut. bcing wrongly formed,leads thc thoughts Ιο a non-cxisting vcrb sommαk. cf. Dίlde (j:Ie~menin SInrrι NeOImal,dιr 1962,45), arc confuscd with one another, at least ίη specch.

With thc abolίshment of Arabic and Pcrsian as school subjects, the knowiedge of4tikak, Arabic word-formation, has decreased rapidly. The thought of thercformers was Ιο rcplace ψίkαk by Turkish word-formation, but as ηο specific ruleshavc bccn cstablishcd for the υοο ofthe different suffixes,especially ηοΙ the rcvivedoncs, this attempt has οηΙΥ partially bcen a success. This ί. also due Ιο the fact thatspccia1izcd, cspccially abstract, language ίο ίη need of highly differentiateddenominations which should give ηο possibility for misunderstanding. Fordcnoting, for example, an instrument for _ίηι, gor- οι κδ: plus a nominal suffixofcoursc may form ncw words. Βυι how should the speaker know ifthis word denotcsgIasscs, a monoclc, binoculars, a microscope, etc., οι if ίι has an abstract meaningοιιΙΥ rclated to secing? The old words havc the undeniablc advantage that they havccntercd the laηguagc οηο by one ίη a natural way, together with the object οι concepIthcy signify, and that they alrcady werc closely lίnked Ιο thcir connoιation then. Thisfaet docs ηοΙ always seem Ιο have becn ιaken ίηΙο consideration by the ρuήsιs, whooften seem Ιο ovcrcstimaιe the capacities of Turkish ιοοΙ. and suffixes.

476

6 Terminology

6.1 This last question ίο highly rclevant Ιο thc reform work ίη the field oftermsused ίη scicnces and school-subjects, which ί. thc field where the impact ofEuropean words ίο strongcst, due both ιο tcchnological devclopment and Ιο

westernization.One of the most thought-provoking views οη the ΡήnciΡles for and difficulties

connected with terminology reforms are prcsented by Bλ~KλN (1974). Stating thatthe modern world ίο confronted with a "kavram parIαmasI ". he asserts that from theροίτιι ofview ofeasy understanding ίι would bc ideal ιο have a Turkish terminologyίη Turkey (he does ηοι mention the nationalίst argument). Jndeniably he ίο ήghι 10 acertain extent. buI sccms Ιο overlook one facI, saying: " ... bir δΓKίi olu~turan

terimler ar8s,ndaki baalanιιlar, hem hίςίm hen:erlίgi. hem de kavram hen:erIi.~i

bakImlarιndan dίizenlenebilirler. Bi~im bcnzerli~. sozgelίmi ~υ sozcίikler dizisindcyeterince a~Ik olarak gorίilebilίr: 'bilgi, bilgin, bilge, bildiri, biIdirim, bίldίή~ίm,

bildirici, bildirgen, bilim, bilinti, bili, bilik, lψίΙ" vb. Kavram bcnzerliai ise genclsozlίikten deνψilen sozcίiklerden olu~mu~ orgίilerde daha bir gizlίlik gOstermekte.ve baalantIlarιn saptanmast ί~ίη ozei eaitim gerekmektedir. Ornekse, 'ordu,kolordu, tίimen, tugay, alay, tabur, boIίim, taktm, manga'." (Bλ~KλN 1974, 181.)Αο pointed out above, due to the lack ofa clear system ίη the use of suffixes, the

gi:lίlik of the exact semantic contents of the different derivations of hiI- which theauthor mcntions, ί. stiII prescnt. And cspccially bec8Use most of tbcsc almostbomonymous neologisms were introduced witbin a short span of years, tbc dangerof confusion bctwcen them ίο bigbly imminent.

Tbe reformers' attiιude towards borrowings from European languages basvaricd greatly, but sincc tbc end oftbc 1940s tbe major task ofTDK bas bccn Ιο findpurc Turkish replacemcnts forscientific tcrms, wbich Ιο a great e.tent are Europeanand international. Α short survey ofTDK' s terminology work ί> found ίη KIjKSAL1983.The resuits ofthis work have always bccn criticized sharply by the opponentsof the reform, evcn after ίτ was takcn over by spccialists ίη the different scientificfields ίη the bcginning of the 1960s. Thc ciritcism ί> mostly of the same kind as wealready have rcferred Ιο, bcing either based οη sentimental reasons οι referήng ιο

the methods used by the reformers. Criticism of the whole idca of replacinginternational terms by terms understood only ίη Turkey has becn madeastonishingly seldom ίη Turkey itself, but the possible unfortunate rcsults of thisdeveIopment have bccn pointed out by forcign Turcologίsts Iίke STAROSTOV 1970.[Ιη his article about scientific langυage, GIjKB"RK (1974) denounces OttomantechnoIogical terms, but givcs ηο arguments against the use of Europcan terms ίη

their place.]It secms that medicine ί. one ofthc few fieldsofscience where almost ηο attempts

have bcen made ΙΟ rcplace thc intcrnational scientific terms by Turkish ones (cf.Η"γο 1954,87, and CANDA 1982and 1983). Forotber fields, TDK bas published a

477

νβ.ι numberofdictionaries - some quite puristic. others alΙοwίήga certain amountofforeign words. The cornerstone οΓ this whole series οΓdictionaries. so ΙΟ speak. isOrta (Jtretίm Terim/eri K,/avuzu Ι 963. which gives pure Turkish words for everyconcept related Ιο science subjects ίη the I/koku/ and O,laokuI. Βυι there are alsoιpccia1ized, advanced dictionaries ίπ fieIds from asIronomy ("gokbj/jm") ΙΟ

football ("ayaklopu"). from literature (''ΥαΖlη'') ιο industrial propriety rights("yαpιm ΙΥe/ΙtΓ) (see SΌZLϋK). Without further commenting οσ the Turkishequivalenιs of foreign terms given ίη these dictionaries. Ι would like ΙΟ ροίυι ουΙ

that most of these dictionaries contain excellent explanations of each entry. itsEnglish, Gcrman. andjor French and. when ίι exists. Ottoman. equivaIent. and alsouseful word-lists of the terms ίπ foreign languages.

Ιη 1970, TDK established a special committee Ιο find Turkish equivalents forwordsofWestern οήιίπwhich did ηοΙ directly belong Ιο any special scientific field.ΟΓ which needed special treatment. Βαll Kaynak/, Sozciik/e,e Καφ/,k Bu/maDenemesi (11972 and " 1978)is a presentation ofthe work ofthecommittee. wherethe entries are ηοΙ - as ίπ the other dictionaries - the puristic suggestions. but theEuropean words with the spelling they already have acquired ίη Turkish.

'The criticism and doubts mentioned above are justified also here. Especially Ihesuggestions Iikego,"/dίi for vize. o/maz/amak for velo elmek, evell'e for pc,mi, odenefό. rek.ye,ine for a/ego,I. and yerine/ for a/ego,ik are highly unsatisfactory becauseof the change of word-class ΟΓ improper use of derivational suffixes implied.(Jzellgen foramator. sondeyi~ Γοτ epi/og. du,du,ar for!ren. aY'IfIk for helerogen. anddlιιJellek for kamp are good enough from 'all points of view, but the difficultiesinvolved ίη propagating these neologisms and actually making them replace theforeign terms seem rather unsurmountable.

6.2 Ιη some fields ofIerminology. reform work meets with greater difficutIiesthanίη others: Fields where ποΙ European, but Arabic and Persian words are Ιο beavoided, seem strangely enough Ιο present special obstacles Ιο purification. Thatreligious language is especially conserνative (with even Persian iza!et constructionsstil\ ίη use). is understandable, but also ίπ the fields οΓe.g. grammar and Ιβν; the oldIanguage still seems ΙΟ prevail Ιο some extent.

Ιι is rather strange that juridical language is still so conservative. especially ifweconsider the fact that the modernization ofthe Turkish constitution has been one οΓ

the fields where the reform movement has attracted most attention. ONDER (1974and 1977) has claimed that there is an increasing tendency of purism ίη Iegallanguage. and one would believe that the fact that severallaws.like the Penal Code.hive been published by TDK with an "ΟΖtϋrkι;e" text together with the οήιίηΒI

ΟΜ. would lead Ιο more modern laηguage ίη this field. However, ίι seems IhaIterminology used ίη law courIs today is sIill ιο a great extent based οπ Ihe sIaIe ofIhe law laηgυage before Ihe reform. This is probably due ιο the fact Ihat most ofIhejuridical text-books read by students of Iaw at Ihe Turkish universities ιιίll use Ihe

47Β

~ .....-,.~ - .-.~

old laηguage. the juridicaI jargon. so ιο speak. For sharp criticism against thepurification οΓ juridicaI terminoIogy cf. SAFA 1970. Ι96-197.

One ofIhe reasons why the laηgυageofgrammar-at leasΙοπ the university leνeΙ

- is so conserνaIive. is without doubt that the phiIologists βΙ the University οΓ

lstanbul were among the first organized opponenιs against a radical laηguage

reform, and. 10 a greal extent. have since remained such. However. as neitherArabic ηΟΓ European terminology is quite sufficient ΙΟ designate the features οΓ

Turkish grammar. Ihis would be one of the fields where a reform would have goodchances to succeed completely. especially because grammar is a subject taughtalready ίπ primary school. The same would apply Ιο juridical language. as mostcountries have their own terminology ίη Ihis field. and there ί. ηο danger οΓ a"western ίσιρεοι".

One οΓ the most interesting works οη the terminology question is SAYlLI 1978.The author. who ίη principle is a protagonist Γοτ continued purification. suggeststhat a great number of the neologisms οΓ the reformists. ηοΙ οηΙΥ ίη the field οΓ

terminology. but ίη general. do ηοΙ havc exac\ly the same meaning as the wordsthey are meant Ιο replace. Ι η such cases. he asserts. both the neologisms and the oldwords should be used with their different nuances of meaning ίπ order Ιο create alanguage as expressive and flexible as possible.Αι the same time however. the author agrees that terminology ίη general should

be Turkish. and suggests new methods for creating terms. He sometimes goes ratherfar indeed suggesting for example Islnlne/ekl,ik for lermoe/ekl'ik. where Isln,n isgenitive and there ί. ηο possessive suffixοη e/ekt,Ik. using the far-fetched pattern ofexpressions like "Bo,ekrInIn Feride". Ιπ some cases. the author seems ΙΟ perform amere play with roots and suffixes. disregarding the difficulties ίη making theprospectIve users accept these words. Αι the same time, however, SAYILI'S study ί.

extremely rich ίη examples and interesting details.The terminology question has also been studied by ORLOV 1976,who also gives a

general prcsentation οΓ the development οΓ the language reform and relatedproblems.

7 Non-Iexical Aspects

7.1 The la,"guage reform has Ιο a great extent con~ntrated οη the lexical aspectsofthe Turkιsh language, and the Iong. often futίle discussions which have lasted formore Ihan fifιy years. almost exclusivelydeal with words. while other aspects of thelanguage are ofιen neglected.. The enforceme~t.of neologisms has inevitably led Ιο some confusion, especiallylη the fieldofstYIIstIcs (cf. ΒIΝΥλΖλR-όΖτεκ!Ν 1978.64). The borderline betweencorrect and incorrecI uses of words and expressions often seems 10 be very flexible.AKSOY (1964) has treaIed some common mistakes, mostly made by newspapercolumnists. Similar interesIing stylistic remarks - from a much more conserνaIive

479

Ροίηl of view - are found ίη SAfA 1970. The most useful work ίη Ihis respect ίοδZDάJBυ 1958, which ίο based οη American popular books like "Way Το

Vocabu1ary Power", "Words of Power" etc. Ιη ορίτ. of the author's almostreactionary disregard of the opposition between Ottomanisms and neologisms.δzDάJBυ ίη fact shows a most efficient way 10developing a good and correct sty1e,fίllo meellhe demands of Ihe W..ternized Turkey of today.

Besides Ihe slylislic aspects. the efTort το bring the writtcn Ιοηιυοιο .Ioscr το thcspoken one has also had some results ίη the field of synlax.Αη οριίοηε] arrangement of the ΡΟΓΤ. of Ihe senlence with thc finile verb τιοτ

necessari1y being Ihe last element. i.e. the so-called dev,ik cίίm/e. ίο a syntacticalfeature found through all periods of the Turkish language. as shown by EDtSKUN(1967). However. οη. of the condiIions ofthe υ.. of the dcv,ik c'ίίm/c-constructions

has always been thal there shouId be ηο ambiguity aboullhe synlacticaI funclion ortheelement taken ουΙ ofits "normaI" place. This element should have a case-ending

:.. ΟΓ (ίη shorter phrases) be the subjecl ofthe phrase ΟΓ an adverb. The verh ί. placedas the}i,sI elemenl ofthe phrase only ίπ questions and emphalic phrases like oaths

. and commands. However, some authors today seem 10 use dev,ik cίίm/ι as a ρυΓ'

..manneήsm. Ιο a certain extent disregarding the above rules restricting ίι. use.Interesting views and examples or dev,ik cίίm/ι are found ίη GQK~EN 1967a and

• ACARLAR 1972.Οηο ofthe results oflhe avoidance of Arabic words ί. the tendency 10replace Ihe

conjunction νι by oIher constructions, especially by using ί/ι. This has been treatede.g. by KONUR 1967. and by GOK~EN 1967b, where some problems connected withthe υ.. of alternative constructions are pointed ουΙ.

The increasing tendency το replace possessive participles + zaman. vakit as"converb-equivalents" by possessive participles ίη the locaτίνe case, e.g. giIIigimdcinstead of gillίgim zaman. ίο probably due Ιο the same puristic trend, βο both vakitand zaman are Arabic words.

STAROSTOf (1970) ΡοίπΙ. ουΤ that the converb ίπ -dιgιnca has ποΤ been much usedίη 1iterary language before the language reform, and that the auxiliary -du,sun ίπ

e.g. bunu yapadu,sun has been introduced from the language of fairy-tales.We may add the more frequent υ.. ίη wήtίngof dia1ectical converb-equivalents

based οη the present particip1e, Iike -ΑπΑ tkk/kada,. -AndA. -AndAn <οπ,α. asfound ίη ΑΖοή, probably a1so a result of the desire ΙΟ bήng the wήtten languagec10ser ιο the spoken one.

AKSOY (Ι978) has pointed ουΙ some interesting ΟΡΡοοίιίΟΩ. between wήtten andspoken language ίη the υ.. of numerals ίπ traditional expressions Iike /Π

, Μιι.ιιαΙα/Mustafa Π/, and ίη the designation of dates. which he proves ΙΟ haveοήgίnated partly from ArabIc and Persian infίuence. partly from European1anguages.

7.2 STEUERWALD treats ίη Ihe second volume of his Ihree-volume sιudy

(STEUERWALD 1964)anolher inleresling feature oflhe lβηιυβι.deve10pment ίη thiscenιury. i.e. the prob1ems invo1ved ίη the adaptation of the Lalin alphabet 10 theTurkish 1anguage. When orlhography was being established, Ihe wish Ιο make aphonemic orthography seems ιο have c1ashed ίη severa1cases wilh a wish το avoidirregularilies ίη order 10 Γοιβίη c1aήtΥ and eatab1ish (or rather Γοιβίη) fίxed andunchangeable stems. This ίι obvious from Ihe trealmenI offoreign words ΟΓίιίηοlΙΥ

ending ίη voiced occ1usives and τ, where - conlrary 10 pronounciation - βη

elymo10gical orthography was frequenlly met ίη the earliest years of Ihe 1βΩιυβιο

reform, and stHI ί. Ihe ΓυΙο ιο discertain homonymous words (like sac/saf), and ίη

European borrowings 1ike mon%g. (Α comρaή5Οn with AKSOY 1972 gives βΩ

impression of the changes of orthographical Ρήncίρ1es οη this and other Ροίηιι.

Al50 ΚλΜλΟλΝ 1972 presenls new views οη spelling problems.)Among the most interesling feaΙUres descήbed by STEUERWλΙΟ are "the phases

ofthe dealh οΠοηιvowels" from educaled speech (ορ. cit., 24-32), withoul doubtcaused by Ihe alphabet reform. although Ihe inf\ιιcncc of dia1ecls may a150 havebeen an important factor. Α study ofvowel length ίη broadcasling language lodayand of vowe1-length βΙ sly1e-differentiating fealure wou1d bήng forth 50meinleresling ΟΡΡοιίιίΟΩ. between ρορυ1βΓ and official speech. E.g. the word dakika,which ί. almost exclusively pronounced wilh a shorl ί ίη P9pu1ar speech, ί.

someIimes still pronounccd with a 10ng ί ίη radio langυage, and always ιο whenmeaning "(geographical) minute of longiιude ΟΓ 1aIiιude".

Olher fealures described by STEUERWALD include the υ... of the circumfίex

(which laler have been confίned ονοη more), Ihe representation ofsemi-vocalic ί and!! (,adyo/,adiyo) , anaplyclic vowe1s (k/ίίp/ku/ίίp) , proper names, and inconsisten­cics ίη vowcl- and consonant rcpresentation.

Eνeη if Turkish orthography seems 10 be more established loday through TDK'swork Ihan ίl was ΒΙ the lime descήbed by STEUERWALD. his book ίι ιιίll exlremelyuseful. bolh as a reference book and as a fundamental study of the problemsinvo1ved ίη the alphabel reform. Orthography prob1ems are al50 Irealed by SAMAN1951.

Another prob1em barely louched υΡοη by STEUERWALD (61) ί. which compoundwords should be wήιιen βι οηο, which βΙ two worda. The obvioua anawer ίι, ofcourse, thal Ihis shou1d be decided by the degree of separability between the twoelements, but as such a ρήηcίρ1e ί. high1y arbitrary. inconsistencies easi1y aήse.

Thus, Κ. STEUERWALD: Tίi,kίsch-Deutsches Wδ,ιerbuch (Wieιbaden 1972) haskιrmIzI manIar 'KBίιeΓliηι', hul kιrmIzιturp 'Radieschen'. Or/a lJgre/im 1963 hashajI/ tkgrr «νβΙουΓ Γο1βlίνο». but hajIlnem «humidite re1ative».Τhis inconsiItencymusl be Ihe reason for Ihe rather unorthodox alphabetizing ofenlries found ίη mostof ΤDK's lerminology diclionaries, e.g. UYGUNER-ΤUNER 1972, where e.g. malίΥι.,ί .φrΟΡήetaίre.. comes αβι, Maliye BakanlIAI «Miniatcre des fίnanccs» (cf.SCHARLIPP 1978. 129).

480 31 Η1Ι7.... ί 481

8 The CuItural Implications

1.. The IiveIy discussions about the language reform oΓIen have the tendency ιο

bccomediscussions about words and methods, and the cultural consequences ofthereforιn are often forgoIten. However, Μ. ΚλΡΙλΝ, who was a professor οΓ

Turcology at the University ofIstanbul, has ίη several articles (e.g. ΚλΡΙλΝ 1976)ιήω to remind the reformers οΓ the grea! responsibility they carry for creating acultural gap, for having reformed the language ιο such an exIent that τιοι οηlΥ

lίterature from the lasΙ century, but even literature writIen 40-50 years ago,bccomes unintelligible to Ihe younger generation. ΤΟΚ should recognize Iheexistence ofa "kUlIu, diIi", ΚλΡΙλΝ asserts. Α "kuIrur diIi" would be a rich Iiterarylanguage where οηlΥ the heaviest OtIomanisms should be abolished. a languageίυιο which OtIoman liIeraIure couId easίly be translated, and ίη which Turkishιchool<hildren should be Iaught Ιο read their classics. The recognition of such a

:.. language would secure cultural cοηιίηυίΙΥ, ΚλΡΙλΝ argues.ΙΙ must be added Ihat ίι is typical οΓ the Ianguage situation today that most

. Ottoman lίterature is regarded ηοΙ οηlΥ with lack οΓ understanding, but even with.. QODtempt by the younger generation ίη Turkey. Yunus Emre and other authors of

"halk edebiyatI" have, οη the other hand, become increasingly popular. This, ,tendency, of course, also has Ιο do with the predilection for popular elements ίη

general, "halk~lllk", "halka donίiklίik",which is important ηοΙ οηlΥ ίη KemalistTurkey, but aIso ίη most modern Western societies, and with the aversion for theold autocratic system, for which most OtIoman authors more ΟΓ Iess ήghΙΙΥ arereprded as exponents.

However, ίι must be reminded that is is quite easy Ιο despise and renounce evenone's naturaI culturaI background ίΓ one is devoid οΓ βηΥ qualificaIion forunderstanding ίι.

GUnUmuzde Turk DίIί 1974is, because οΓ its great objecIiviIy, one ofTOK's mos!instructive publications, which includes a Ireatment οΓ Ihe culturaI problem createdby ΤΟΚ. It has the form οΓ a debate between, among others, GOKBERK,respresenting ΤΟΚ, and ΚλΡΙλΝ, representing the opposltion ΟΓ the "mode­rates" .Το KAPLAN'S concem about the cultural gap and the unintelligibίlity of the older

lίterature, created by the reform, GGKBERK'S cryptic argument is as follows. "Neyazιlι Ιιί, Yαhyα KemaI bugίin eskiyor. Severek okudugum Ha~im bugίin

anla,llmIyor. Bunlar bίiyίik ΥίιίΙι....Ama bunlarI unutmayacak, bunlarI sίirdίire­

cek bi.rtakIm insanIar,mIz da olacaktIr." (Gunumuzde Turk DiIi 1974,46.)ΚλΡΙλΝ, expanding his views οπ the necessity οΓ allowing Ihe existence οΓ a

"IιίiIIίiΓ dili", argues: ''OsmanlI medeniyeti devrindeki ,ίίΓΙΟΓίπ diIini bugίin

ΒπlΒΥΒΠΙΒΓ φΙι azdIr. FuzuIi, Baki, Nedim, ~eyh GaIip bίiyίik ιairlerdir. FakatonΙαΓιn diIi okullarda okutulmadIj!l ί~ίπ bu ,airIerin eserleri art,k anIa"lm,yor.

As,rlar boyunca yeti,mi, olan bu sanatkiirlarI yok mu farzedecej!iz?

482

... ...,.

ΥοΙί,"π nesiller, ΤίiΓIι milletinin aslrlar boyunca yarattIj!ι eserΙeή okumayacakml? Okumazsa, ΠΒΟΙΙ mίlli benlij!ine kBvuιacak?" ... (GUnUmiίzιkTiίrk DiIi 1974.ρ. 31.)

The truth and reIevance of ΚλΡΙλΝ'Οview ίο incontestable. Even if the difficuIIBDd cήtίcal situation ίη ΤυΓΙιΟΥ ίη the last Ι 970s was caused mainly by economic andpoliticaI factors, the cultural μρ created by the lan8uage reform can hardly be saidΙο have had a positive effect οπ the deveIopment.

9 The Ianguage reform movemen t aΓIer 1980

With the coup d'etat ίπ 1980 and under the subsequent ήght Win8 govemmenIΤΟΚ 's role as an advocate for a continued language reform was threatened, and thl'government spared πο effort Ιο try το change the policy and aims οΓ Ihcorganization. Strong voices also demanded that the organization should be closeddown, but the fact that ίι had been founded by Atatίirk and even was supported b}his testamentary bequest seemed Ιο be an lψSurmountable obstacle. The questionwhether ίι would be possibJe Ιο transform ΤΟΚ together with ΤίiΓIι Τaήh KurumuίπΙΟ an ''Academy'' WBS subject Ιο ardent discussions ίη the press. Eventually, by ulaw of August 17th, 1983, AIatiίrk KiίΙιiί" DiI ve Tarih Yiiksek Kuruιnu wa'established as an organization direct1y under the Ministry of State, andapproximate1y two months later ΤΟΚΊ president, ~rafettinTuran, was replacedby Hasan Eren.

Under its new bord of directors ΤΟΚΊ activities have mostly been confined tophίloIogicaI research and lexicography; the "confessional" and "progressive" spiriIof the former organization has been repIaced by a more conservative and academicatmosphere where ρuήSΙίc efforts have compIetely been abandoned. The ne'"organization, which ίο dominated by the opponents Ιο the language reform as ίι wa,carried ουΙ by the former ΤΟΚ, more resembles a university institute than avocation-inspired organization.

There have been 50veralother reactions Ιο the work done by the reformers, Ιοο:

among the more spectacu1ar efforts ίη this direction should be mentioned what wemay cBII the ''Yαsaklαnαn Kelimeler OlαΥ''', Βη ονοηΙ which was discussedextensively also ίπ intemationa1 press: Αι the end of 1984, the executive board οΙ

Turkish Radio and Television promulgated Β lίsι containing 205 words from thenοπ forbidden Ιο u50 ίπ Turkish radio and television. The Iist, which became subjecι

Ιο a storιn of protests, WBS said Ιο have οήgίnated from Zeynep KoΓIιmBZ, whoisa member ofthe board, and who towards the end ofthe '7Οι had gradually startedΙο oppo5o Ιο ΤΟΚ, and who fervently had defended a less radical policy than the oldΤΟΚ officially had been standing for. The reason why just the50 words werrforbidden, however, was subject Ιο νΟΓΥ Iitt1e comment ίπ the press, whichemphasized other aspects, especially the political ones, However, ίπ fact most οΙ

these words were nouns deήved from verbs with "wrong" deήνaΙίοnalsuffixes (cf

31'

... ί) θboνe),and σοι a coIIection of words chosen arbίιraήlΥ, as was mainιained by$Omc ncwspapcrs, Among thc words wcre e.g. doga for Iahiat, hil'em for ij,,/up,words foπned with the suffix -sA/, and words formed with prefixes, like ongoru forbtuίnt,

Howcνer, bcforc long the "eski dilciler" started Ιο form an organized oppositionΙο tho ncw ΤΟΚ, and ίη Ι 985 the 53th Oίl Bayraml was cclebrated ίη Ankara bothby thc "yeni dilciler" and the "eski dilciler", but ofcourse separateJy. Ιη July 1987thc "eskidilcί/er" started ιο publish Turk Di/i Dergisi ίη opposition ιο Turk Di/i, theofficial organ of ΤΟΚ,

Among thc literature dealing with the Language Refoπn ίη this lasι pcήοd Ι findίι ίη ίιs placc το mention especiaIIyδΖΕΙ 1986,an anthology ofspceches and articlesby tIιc "eski di1ciJer", partially ίη connection with the Dil Bayraml ίη 1985, Some ofthcm present a surνey of the events bcfore the reorganization of ΤΟΚ, othersc;ontain cήιίcίsm of the activities and publications of the present organization.J4tatίίrk 'iJn yolunda Turk Dil Devrimi 1981, which ί. an anthology of papersI?resented ίη connection with the IOOth anniversary of AtaΙUrk's birth ίη 1981, ί.

also a useful documen\ of the status of the Janguage reform just bcfore thereσrganization of ΤΟΚ. As a representative of the opposite view should bcmcntioned the three volume antho!ogy ofarticles οη Janguage questions which haveapPeared ίη the newspapcr Terciiman ίη the laΙe '70s and 1980, Ya~a)'an Turkremiz1981, Questions related Ιο the Language reform are treated mostly ίη the Ist and2nd volumes. Αη instructive survey ί. also ~ORKMAZ 1985,where she among othersubjecιs gives comments οη the ".va.,ak ke/imeler ".

BlbU.....,..y

The following biblίography incJυdes ποΙ οπl)' the works οπ thc Janguage refonn and language ΡOIicy

ιn:ι.tod ίπ tbc text. but also pubIicationsl have ποι scen. and oldcr works. Even ifit actuaIIy faIIs outsideιIιe ιcope or this ιιυdy, and rather ίι a lexicoaraphical subjec:t. Ι also includc (ιee Sozlίik) a ΙίιΙ of thcιpcιcίaIίad ιerminoJoιydietίonarics pubIishcd byTDK, since such a liιΙ may be useful. The bibIioaraphydocι ηοΙ upίre Ιο be compIeIc. Very fcw of the reicvant book reviews have becn included.

Acarlar, Κ.1972 "Dcvήk Ciίmιe", Di/biIgisi 50ru"I.rι 11. Ankara, (ΤΟΚ 356) 25\-257.

Alalιay, Μ, Α,

1943 Tϋrkfe felse/e Ierίmlrri"in dil bakιmι"d'αll Οζιklοrιmαsι dolayuiyle bazl kelime yapt yollαrι.

, latanbul (ΤΟΚ 83).Aaιaη, Ο.

1976 TarIqlIαιι lδΖcUk/rr '" ozIeIIirme sonιnu. Ankara (TDK 425).Α!ιΟΟΥ, Ε.

1978 "Yazι dili - konufΠ18 diIi etkilqmesi ve diJde doιru", Hαcrtttpe U"iversitrsi F,αnslZ Dilί '"Edebiyαll Bδlίιmίι lΗτκω 1.1, 7G-78.

484

Ak.oy, δ. Α .ι 964 ΟiΙ ίizrrine di4tiίιιce/ιor - dίιzrIIfM/er. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 190).Ι 969 (JzIefIjr~ dιιτιJιιnιlanιαz. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 284).1972 'Ύenί Im1i KIIavuzu", DilbilKUi Sonιnlαr, /1. Ankara. (ΤΟΚ 356). 11-26.1973 ..ΝyelνύjίtUί munka)atok TorokorιD8ban" (Languagc reform works ίο Turkey), NyeIVlu-

donuJnyi KOzI.m'ny.k 75/1 (Bυdβpeιι), 257-263.1974 "CumhuήΥC:Ι ~ΙI Τϋrkς:esί", 50. Υ/Ι koιιUfnuιl.,. Ankara. (ΤΟΚ 396), 67-93.1975 Gelqι'n νe iizlr.fl'n di/im;z. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 412).1982 "ΕΙΙί Ya,IDd." (Α surνey of TDK's history ίο connection with ίι, 50th anniνersary), ΤΩ

3\.45.367, \3--22.Anday, Μ. C.

1975 Dί/imiz iίsΙίίlU' konιqmα/ar. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 417).AnteIava. G. Ι.

1967 "Nekotorye voprosy reformi Icksiki sovremenno80 turcekogo jazyka", Akιukmijo NaukGruzin.fkoj SSR. Soob.ftrnija 48/1.241-246. (10 Georgίan wίιh a shon Russian summary.)

Ι 968 "ο doreformπoj Ieksike Iiteratumogo turec:kogo jazyka", Akodemija Nawk Gruzinskoj SSR,Vr.tInik 1968, 1,226-233. (Ιη Georgίaπ.)

1969 ''Ο nekοιοrych tak nazyvaemych neΡrodukιίνnΥch slονοοbraΖονatelΏΥch affiksach lu­reckogojazyka", AkaιkmijoNιιuk Gnuinskoj SSR, Soobttrnija 1969,1, 237-241.(lη Russianwίιh short Georgiaπ and English summaήes.r

1970 Rr/orma sovrrmrnnoj Iurrckoj leksίki. Tbίlisi (Dissertation Summary).Ι 976 "Turec:koe Ιίngνίsιίb:skoe obltestvo ί nekotoryc voprosy reformy tureckogo Iiteratumogo

jazyka",/zνe:rrijaAkαdrmiiNouk Gruzinskoj SSR. serijo Jozyka i Uteratury (TbίΙίsί)4, Ι03~­

109.1978 Krurikij lurecko·nιsskίj πlονατ' "novych" ι/ον. TbiIisi.1985 Tu"cko·ru.r.rkij .ι/ονατ' (Neologizmy). Tbilisi.

ArIsoy, Μ. S.1962-63 λrι diI. dogr.I-V. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 193-194,204-206).

Ataman, S.1981 DiI fιkmαzl. Ankara.·

Λ tDIiirk ϊί" YlIJunJa1981 Λιαιίίrkϊiιι yoJιιnda Tiirk DiJ Devrimi. Ankara (TDK 479).

βaba, Ν.

1944 "Linguistic reform aod hίstοήcal rescarch ίο the ncw Turkey'" AsiaIic revkw 40,173-176.8acqυe·Grammont,J.-L.

1981 "L'ambasιade de France en TurqUΊe ct ι'ωοριίοη du nouvel alphabct cn 1928",Lo Turquie eI10 Froιιce ά I'epoqwι dΆΙΟΙiιrk (od. Ρ. Dumont - J.·L. Bacque..Qraιnmont).ρ_ηι, 229-256.

8alassa, J.1934 "Κeι mai ΠΥeΙνύjίlas" [Two Ianguage reforms of ΙodΒΥ], Mogyor ΝΥelνδr 63, 41-44.

βaπιιτlι, Ν. S.1972 Tiirk{enin s,,/orι. Ιsιaπbuι.

8askakov, Α. Ν.

1975 'ΊaΖ)'kονaja ροΙίιίΙ. Τurec:kogo lίηgνίsιί~Ιoιo obll:estva", Soc;oIo;ngvisιite.rkieprobIem.v,ozvivaju.fficlι.rjtl stroιι. Moscow, 20-26.

Ba$kan. Ο.1974 "ΤeήmΙerde όΖJqme sorunu'" ΤΟΛ γΗ 1973-74,173--184.Ι 979 "Turkification offoreign Icrminologies ίπ Modcm Turkish studics",1. MiIIeIlerorαsI fiirk()lojί

kO"Kre.ri. Tebligle,: 2: Tiι,k dίli '" edebiyαll. IstanbuI. 392.-.02.Batl KαynιlkΙ,

1972-78 &ιί Iιαy"αklιsozciJclere kαrfdlk InJmα dennrιes; Ι. Ankara 1972 (TDK 355), 11,Ankara1978 (ΤΟΚ 361/362).

485

Boydur. S. V.1964 ΟίΙ W' kiίlIw. Ankanι (ΤΟΚ 144).

Bui•• L.1952 "ΙCΙ Ira"ItUJL linI\listiques c:n Τurquie depuis la RepubIiquc". Anadolu Ι. 3-26.1983 o'Uι reforme Iinguistique en Turquic'" LanKuagr ,('Iorm: hi.ytory andIΙΙΙII'~ (ed. Ι. Fodor­

G. H...ΙC). H.mburl. I5S-I77.Bί.y...r. λ. - OzIeki•• Μ.

1971 Y4UUI W' hi/im di/imi:. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 440).Boιwoolι, ο, Ε.

I96S "Languιιιe Refonn and nationalism ίο modern Τurkey - οι. bήefconspcctus", Mwlim World55. 51--65. Ι 17- Ι 24.

Branda. Η. W.1966 "Neologίιmen und Τenninologicίη den heυtigen Turksprachen", ZDMG Ι 16.279-290.

8rendceocn. Β.1971 "Tyrki.k .pr.kρolitik 1921-78". Sumtidtn 87/7. 437-448.

Cand•• Μ. $.. 1912 "TιpDili". ΤΟ 31.44.362. 113-115."\983 "TIpdiIinin tUrk~lqIiriImesi". ΤΟ 32.46.374. 95-96.ςaι.... S.

1933 "11 movimento ρeΓ la ήfοrrna della ιiπιυιι ιυΓca", La Vita /ιαlίaπα 41.39---43.

OIιuιaίnoν. Μ. Μ. .1977 Κ karukIrristik, Ιrk.ficr.ykolfll a.'PrklD ja:ykoνoj rr.{ι,rmy ν Turcii. Tbilίsi (DisscrtatIon

summary).Cίί!elotlu. D.-SIobi•. D. Ι.

1976 εg,cI. οι ιΜ Turkuh Ianguag, r~rorm on ΙWr.fM ΙW"'ι'p,ίon. Berkcley.

ςapιay.S.

1978 "OilimΊZ ϋStundc dil$unceler'" ΤΚ 16.183. Ι45-Ι53.

ςonιuι. R.1963 DΙΙίιηίΖίn D:w~fM,fi"dt' Uf'" dιιvranrlmqm,d,,? Ankara (TDK 215).1967. Τίιrlι "ιιkιιk dili nQ.fII δ:Ιι'~'ΙιίΙι'''ίΙ;ι? Ankara (ΤΟΚ 256).I967b Οίl ιαrιφrιo1αrι. A.kar. (TDK 262).

Dclίιό.ϋΙ. Μ.

1912 "Turk~c ιcήm uzerinc'" ΤΟ 31.45.367. 23-28.

DcnY. Ι.1935 "ΙC reformc acIueIIc dc ι. langue Turque", Ειι Τι'rfι' dΊ.,Ιαm 10 (1935),223-247.1938 "Existe-t ίΙ deι prefixes cn turc'?", Bu//etίn ιk Ια Socie'; de LingιιΙ,'ίqιw ιk ΡαιΙπ 39, 51-65.

DlI • .,/mj1967 D# άtvrimi υ::ι'ιίΜ. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 258).

Dil άtwimiιtiιt

1962 D;I ιkvr;minίn JO }.",. ΑπΙιΙΙΤΒ (TDK 198).

DiI Υα:,/α"

1974 Dil Yα:,lαrι 1-11. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 387, 395).

Dίlφι. λ.

1963 "λt8Ιϋrk νc Turk~", ΑιαιυιΙι Vι' ΤίίιΙι diIi. ΑπΙιΒΓΒ (TDK 224), 4Ι-52.1969 Τίιrlιί~'. diI o:I'ffM,'; - LαπXl«lΙΙι' r~rorm ίπ Turlιry. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 295).

'1975 "KemaIizmin Dil vc Τaήh reZΊ'" A,atiίrlι lNvrim/,rI Ι. mill"ltrara." .,impo"yumu hildiri/,ri.

I....bul. 467-417. (WiIh E.llish .umm.ry.)1976 "Prof. J, Nemeth's rolc ίη thc Turkish aIphabeI and languasc rerorm", Hungaro-Turcicu.

Studw, tn Iιαιιo.,.f J.li... Nimrιh. Bud.peιI. 351-356.O//M,Is/

1967-72 Oilbil,Lfi .•o",ηlαrι Ι. A.k.ra 1967 (TDK 259). 11. A.kar. 1972 (TDK 356).

486

Dilde ij::lefmenin ."ΙΙ,1/

1962 OίΙιk o::/efmenin .rIn'1/ Πι' Q/ma/,d,r? ΑηΙιΙΓΙ (ΤΟΚ 195).DίιΔιιrοj:Ιu, Η.

1962 Τurkς,d, .'o:culι yupma ΥοlΙα". Ankara (ΤΟΚ 200).DudίιI, Η. W.

1929-30 "Dic ncuc Latcίnιchήfι ίπ der TGrkei", OLZ32. 441--453. 33. 401--413.1942 "Dic Gesundung dcr tfirkiιchenSprachreform", 1H, I$/ιιm 26, 77-100.

See .Ιso Heyd.Ediskυn, Η.

1967 "Devrik cumIc ϊιzerinde bίΓ .....tInna··. Di/biIgUΊ!orιιιιIa"Ι. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 259).130-138.1972 ''Οήηιι. omck νe omclίn hikιi.)'cιi'" DiIb#XUΊ$onιnΙαrι 11. Ankara (TDK 356). 120-129.

Emiroj:Iu, C.1977 lf/άm ya:,.fJna da;r. Istanbυi.

Eren. Η.

1975 'ΌίΙde birlik", I . Tίίιlι dίli bίIim.r,/kuruItaνInanmu/lJllb,/diril", Ankara (TDK 413), 157-164.ΕΓΙΟΡ, Κ.

1963 'Άιaιurk deνήmίnde Turk dίli", Α,αιίι,Ιι '" Turk di/i. ληIιιnι (TDK 224), 53-99.GaI'pcrinίιI. Ε.

1952 Κ vopro,'" ob UΙo,ίί ,αzνίιίja turrckogo IiIeraturnogojαzyku.Prriod οΙ 1918 dα /9J/ g. Moscow(Izd. Vystej DίpIomatiteskoj Skoly. MID SSSR)"'

Giese, Ρ.

1934 ''Oie Rcinigung und Emeυerungder t6rkiιchenSprachc", Forschung," und ForI$ch,ine 10,407.

GOkaIp. λ.19Ι55 "ι.e 'Iurquisrnc': I'emergenc:ιe dc 1. IMηgυe nationalc turque ct les problemes de changcment

linguisriqυeen Turquic". NαΙίoιupαy.rαnne.,doεurojWanIra/, ι'ι bα/lιαniqw(ed. Α. ΟδΙιΒlρ).

Paris, 97-1 15.GOkbcrk. Μ.

1974 "ΤaήhseΙ 8rka planl bakImIndan cumhuή)'ct donemindc biIim dίli", JO. )'ΙΙlΙonιφΜlα".A.kar. (TDK 396), 117-127.

OδIιΙCη, Ε. Ν,

1967. "Τaήh bo)'unca deνήk CΎmJe'" DilbiIgUi $orιmlαrι Ι. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 259), 139-144.1967b "Ve - ilc". Oilbilgu; ,onuιl"" Ι. A.k... (TDK 259). 214-220.

Gίiniίmίizιk ται/ι DIIi1974 GiίnUmu:rk Τίί,Ιι Di/i. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 4(0).

HίιIcleminoAIu, Ν.

1972 Τίίrkςι'nin karαnlιk ιιiίn/ι'Iι. Istanbul.ΗιιιιίboΙlυ, v.

1967 "DiIimiZΊn bir rneιelesi", Di/bi/gisί Jorun/arι Ι. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 259), SQ-56.1973 Cumhu,iyrtίn e//lnci YI/mdaόΙίίιmfιz Ataturk rr d# tk.,r;mi. Ankara (TDK 377).

Hazai, G.1971 "LinguistΊCΙ and langυaιeίsιυcι ίη Turkcy". CurrrnI I,rntb olIίnpuIic.r6:LingιιuIk$in SouIh

w,.$I Α3ία αnd NorιJι AI,icα (11ιe Η.ρ). 746-758.1971 Κ.,,, Etnf/ίJι",ng ίη ιIus Studium ι/ι, ιDrlιlsεM. S!"OCM. Wieιbaden.

See.Ιιο Stcuerwald.HershI.I. Ζ. V.

1961 T.,kry: Th. chαll.n,. οι ,rowIb. Leide•.Heyd. U.

1953 "ιa.lua.. Reform ί. modem Turkey". Middl. Eαsι... AJfairs 402-409.I9S4 Lun_. Rclorm tn mαdc.. 7ΊuIι.y. Jeruaalem.

Rcνiew.' G. Frιenkel. UAJb 27 (1955). 129-130. V. L. M6naΙC. BSOAS 17 (1955). 402.Η. W. Dud•• WZKM 52 (1955). 421-122.

487

Hony. Η. C.'1947 "The new Turkish", JRAS 21f>-221.

Hlebίάok, ί.1975 "The Turkish I,..nauage refonn and contcmporary texts. Α contribution ιο ιtιe ItyIiIric

eνaIυation of borrowinιs".ArOr 43/3. 223-231.1m. "Thc TurkίIhΙBΩιυaιcrcfonn and contcmporary Icxicon.Α conrribuIion 10rhe dcιcήΡtίοn of

difl'erenceι berween rhc spoken and written languagcs". ArOr 4512,132-139.1977b "Turcι:kιi jazykovIί reforma", Jazyky ιuirodou Asir. A/riky α Ocrάnir ο ,frjiclι fZIαJι kr

JpO/rCnoιIi.po/IΙί("~ ο kulturr. Prague, 196-209.Ι978 '''Tbe Turkieh languaιe rcform and contcmporary arammar {Ihedifferencc bcrween thc spoken

(ι) .ncι wήιιcn (w) tcxts οη Ihe IcvcJ of grammaIical morphemcsr·. ArOr 46/4, 334-337.1Ia)<lιn. Η.

1973 "Omeιiιι rιciaιι", το 23.29.267, 24~2S6.Iιιιor. Κ,

197) ·'Τ6ή. yazι diIiηde dίl deνriminin bqlangιcIndan 1965 ΥΙΙι ιoπυπa kadar όzleιmc ϋzcriM

ιayιma day.nan bir ara,tImιa". TiίrkoJoji lHrgUi 5.1. 175-190.1976 Oί/ιk ιklφrw .. g.lqntl! αςιsuιdoo Tii,k dil ιι.V,imί. Ankara (TDK 422).

;~,Y.• 1978 "Dildc oόzlqtiηn_. n_reye νοΠΙ.?" ΤΚ 16.183 (1978), 17~178.JuιiΡOva, R. R. (- R. R. Υυιίρονο)

· 19758 ''0 nekotorych ρυι jach ·otiltenija· sovremennolo rum:kOlo litcratumoao j.zykε",• Socίoliιιg.,isIifrskir probJrmy razvivojιdf;cMja sIrαn. Moscow. 208-213.

1975b (R. R. YUSΊpoνβ) "Τϋrk~e yeni sOzcϋk ve dcyim yapma ΥοΙυ". Ι. Tiίrk dili b"imsrl• kfIrιιlIayltUI RIIIIIlan bildirilrr. Ankara (TDK 413).199-201.1982 ''Ο ιo<:hranjacmosti ν jazykc novych Icksimkich edinic (ΠΒ materiale ιovtemennogo

tureckoso jazyka)". TrorrIif~skirprohlrmy 1I0stofnogo jαzykoznanija S, 169--174.Κamadιιη, Μ.

1972 'Ύazιm kunιIIarImlz ΎZCrinc", ΟίΙ sorιmlarι 11. Ankara (ΤDK 356). 351-362.κ.ριaη, Μ.

1976 "Oιιnan1ι<a, Τϋrkςe, ΟΖιϋrkςe", ΤΚ 15.169,14-19.Κara1, Ε. Ζ.

1978 "OsmanIt ιarihinde Τϋrk dilί ιorunu". Bilim. kiiIIiίr νr ogrrIim di/i oIllrαk ΤίulCςr. Ankara, 7­96.

Κaraman1,oAIu, λ. F.1972 Tiίrk diJί - nιorιodrn gιoliyor. nrrryιo gidiyor? Istanbul.

Ki1~S.

1975 "Τϋrk diI devriminin ycnilqme ι;abιιmIzdaki Υcή". Ι. Tiίrk diJi biJimHl kurulIayuια sunιdαn

bildi,il.,. Ankara (TDK 413), 55-{)4.Kiulin.. Η. J.

1937 'Όίe Ιϋrkίιchc Sprachrefomι". ύ;Ρ:ίκι" lIίrrIιoljαhrssclιrif" jiίΓ Siίd03IΙOfIropα 1/3, 69--81.1968 "Yerιυch cineι Bcitraιes zum Ventindnas der Ιϋrkίιchcn Sprachrefomι'" MiIIrilfl1l6tn.r

SiitJωr..ropo·C....II"h.jι 8, 3--4 (Munich), 80-84.Κδk..1,λ.

1983 'ΈΙ1ί Υ'Ι boyunca Τϋrk Di1 Kurumu Τ_ήm Kolu ~IIlmaIarι", το 32.47.381, 269-278.Κοηοηον, λ. Ν.

"1959 "Rcfomιa aIfaviιa ν Turcii (k istorii voprosa}". Ufrnyιo Zapuki uningraιhkogoortknauninaGosιιJar.ttνennogoUnivrri.fι~I" 282 (Lcningrad). 158-169

ΚοηυΓ

1967 ''Vc'" Di/hilKi.fi .forιmlur,1' ληΙBnι (ΤDK 259),208-213.Korkmaz, l.

1963 ΤίιΤ. diliιιiιι r.,W ιιkφ iςind< Aιαιiir• .. diI ιι..,imi. Ankara.

488

••

1972 '"Dildc 'dopI' aelίμnc vc 'dcvrίm' a~lsIndan ΤίίτΙ diI dcvrίmj", T"rk%ji Dtrgίsi4.79-114.1974 Cιιm/ruriyol d6nιmind< Τiιr. dili. Anbra.1978 "DiI ozlqtirmc ~lιμnalBΠ vc metodsuz yakla,Im'" ΤΚ 16.185, 271-277.1980 ''λtaturk ve diIimiz", ΤΚ 19.217. 18-23.1984a "DiIdc dcvlct koruyυculuIu vc Turk DiI Kurumu'" ΤΟ 33.48.387. 141-147.I984b "TϋΓIι~ηίπ Υ_Ρ' ve i,Ic)'if όzeIIikleri ~Isιndan tekrαrlαmok mI? yiMknvk miT'. TD

33.48.388-389, 194-197.1985 "Dί1lnkIIabInIn sadclqmc ve turklqme akImlan arasIDdaki yeri", TD 34.49.401, 382-413.

Krciser. Κ.

1983 "Zum gcgenwMrtiιen (1979/80) Stand des SρrachItreίts ίο der Τurkci am BeίιpίeΙ eiπiger

NcoIogίsmcn (ηιϋdϋm, Ozνcή. ίνωί)" ι XX/.ιkutscMrOrwntαJi.Jtrntag. RιjrrDIe: Aιι.rgΙM'δh/~

,. V.rt,iίg. (&!. F. SιcppoI). Wieιboden, 320-332.KudreI. C.

1986 Diller; να, - bizim dik Iwnzenwz. ,Geni,ιeti1mit 2. baskI). Ankara.Kunos, Ι.

1930 "TorQk nΥeΙνύjίιιίs" ["ΤΜ Turkish lanluaιιe refonn"). Mαgy"" N~/ν6, 59, 152-155.1934 "Α Ιόrόk nyelv meιύjhodύa"l"The rencwaI ofΙΜTurkish IanBuage·1. εmI;lckiinyv ΒιιΙα.f.fα

JόΖ"I..k. Bυdoρesι, 87-90.Κϋι, Ι. •

1976 'oεski ~uk derιiιeήnde dίl konuιu", TD 26.34.300, 412-415.Levend. Α. S.

1972 Τώrk diIίιιdι gelψM νιο SQ.I~sme ev"leri. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 347).1973 ΟίΙ "'Ι.... Ankara (TDK 382).

Lcwis. Ο. L.1984 'ΆιaιiίrkΊ Ianauaιe refomι as ΒΠ MIρecι ofmodemization ίη thc RepubIic ofTurkcy". Λια·

tiίrk αnd ιlΙι ιrιιJtkMIzαιIonΟΙ Turkey (cd. J. Μ. Landau). Bouldcr (CoIorado) - London.19~21•.

ΜΜπιυΓοΙΙυ. Μ.

1954 "RCfoπneι et dcbatI Ιίngυίιιίqucsen Turquie", Orbis 3 (LoυνΒίη), 39S-399.Merdivenci. Α.

1980 TίIrk ΥαΖΙ devrίmi νι yurt d~uιdoJci rϊUkI~re Υαn.fιmα.fΙ. Istanbul.ΝΙ_Ι..., Κ.

1937 "DΊC tίIrkiιche Sprachrefomι'" Norsk tids.tkrift lοr Sprogvitkn.fkap 8 (0.10), 443-459.Ond_r, λ. R.

1974 "Ya5O dili", 50. Υ/Ι kon_I.". Ankara (TDK 396), 94-1 16.1977 "Yar•• dίli", ΤΟ 27.36.312,177-185.

ΟιΙον. S. Α.1976 "lazykovaja refoΠIUI Ι lekιikografiteιkajaraboιa ν Tυrcίί", ST 1976/2, 89--97.1977 Problema rkvivalrntov zaiιruIνoναnnoj lrlcsiki ν SOνrrlMMom Iurr("kom Jilrraturnom jαzyke.

Moscow (OίιιcrΙBΙίoη summary).Oιmanova, Β.

1971 "Τϋrk diI ίιhΙβluιΙί lUΙιιϊnd.... γοprωΥ IIIrr('kojji/ologii. Bιιku, 162-173.Ozd_m, R.

19448 Οίl ιiιrΙY4ί trori/rr;M ιορ/ιι bir hαkιs. Ankara (TDK 86).I944b TanzimαIIαn hrri ΥΟ:Ι dilimiz. Isιa.nbuI.

Ozdemir, Ε.

1969. &ιι.m'" hOfI dil. Ankara (TDK 289).1969b (Jz Tiίrk,r iίz~riM. AnkMra(ΤΟΚ 291).1969c Οίl ιι..,imimίΖ. Ankara (TDK 294).1973 Trrim IuιzιrΙαmιJ kI/oVII:u. AnkarM (TDK 379).1976 "Ι 97S'ΙC dilimίz", γ.,lιk YιJIΙΙι 1976. Iιιanbul, 91-112.

489

Ooιιoιru, Ν.

1958 Tίιrlr.ς~M;z. lstanbuι.

o..ιS.1981 ",Τen:ϋmaπ' ιπ di1i ϋ=iπo", TD 30.42.350, 473-476.1986 λIDIwk'ίΊIι Τίίι'Ιι DiJ Kιιnιmιι "" Sonrαs, (Editon S. ΔZCι - Η. Ozen - Α. PiίskUlIίIoIIu).

λnnιa.

διιΟ. Μ.1963 "Atatilrk'Uιι dilίmiz ίIzcrine eAίIifj", ΑΙαιίίΓΙι νr 1Urk Di/i. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 224), 23-40.

D.ιqιιι--kιJα.....1978 iJz/~fltr1M Ic,laνuzu. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 446.)

feπy, Ι. R.198$ ••....nιuaιe refonn ίο Turkey and ΙΒΠ", Intrrnα';orιaI Jourrιa/ ο/ MiddIr East Studirs

(London-New York) 1713,295-311.POιkΔllϋoΙΙN,λ.

19660 δ. diJlm/z. Ankara CfDK 241).1_ KoιnφrωI.l.Ankara (TDK 242).

RaauIoν, λ. λ.

ι~ "Pυtί popoInenija Icksitcskogo SOSΙΒVΒ sovremennogo turcckogo jazyka", uksikujazykol'"",odo, BliInqo ; SrrdNgo Yosloka. 8aku. 56--62.

Roιoι. Ε.

1979 "Lanauaιe: ConsιantinopIe 10 IstanbuI", Yalr Rrr;rw 68 (New Haven), 309-320.Roιιl, Ε.

1935 "u riforma IίπguίsΙίca ίο Turchia". ΟΜ Ι 5, 45----47.19ιt2 "υπ decenniodi rifonna Iinguislica ίο Turchi.", ΟΜ 22. 466---477.1953 "Ventiάnque Βnnί di ήνο!uzίοne dcII'alfabeto e venti di ήfοπna Iinguisticoι ίη Turchia", ΟΜ

33, 378-384.Sara, Ρ.

1970 Oιmιιιι/,cll - Tίίt'Ic~ - Uydι4rmιιca. Istanbul.Sanwι, Ο.

1951 "ιeι Mιιdca de la !an,ue ιurquc", Λ,ΟI 19, 108-113.Sayιb, λ.

1978 ''IiIim νe δ&retίm diIi oIarak Turk~", BiHm. kίiItiir νt ogrrIim diIi olarαk Tiirk(,'r. Ankara.325-'90.

Selwlίpp, W.1978 Unιπιικιιwtιnι ΖΙΙΙ' MorphoIogir uιιd Sub.fIίtIιIion tiίrkritiίrki.fchrr NroIogίofmen. Hamburg.

Seνi1k, Ι. Η.

1949 Οί/ dιιwu,. istanbul.Shibaιa, Τ.

1960 ""Toruko no moji k.ik.ku" I"The refoπn ofthe Turkish Iiterary language"), Guikoku n;okrruω.,ο moιιdιιI - Do/II1l. TorιιI<o. Chϋgoku. ΤοΙ)'ο. 36----67,

Soko1ov, S. λ.1970 'Ό neoktorych upektach izυtenija jazykovoj situacii ν Τυταί", ProbIrmy /zutrn/jajazykuvuj

sIIIIQCii ijαzykoνoj νομω v strαnach ΑΖ;; / Srνtrnoj Afriki. MoSCQw 1970, 121-124.1983 ••Fonnirov.nίe IiIteιnnyςh ιem.fitiδeιkich oIonolenij v turcckich neolosizmov", Razv/I/e

jιuylr.ov vstrαιιach za""~Ι"OKO Vo.f1oku. Moιcow. Ι~151.

Theteπnίnοlοgydίctίοnaήes hitherto published b)' TDK (ordered according 10 subjcct: ίη IhisΙίιι .110 more ιcneral dίCΙίοnaήes of neoIogisms Iίke the (Jzle~I/rmr Kιlανuzιι art incIuded)

..,,,,ιιιm "Ilmkli Sδt/iiliί (Ν. $anIvar), Ankara 1968 CfDK 271).Λ...,.." SΔ.,.,. (ο. λ. Akooy), Ankara 1962 (TDK 187).ΛιιιJαkbII... ,,,./m/.rί,δ.,.,. (Μ. Τ. Yarar). Ankara 1970 (ΤDK 315).

490

r

A,IeI/zm ter;m/er; ιόΖ/"Ι" (Ν. AIkanat), Ankara 1976 (TDK 429).AyukIopu IerimIer; ιozlUΙα (τΟΚ). Ank.ra 1974 (TDK 398).Aydιnl.,... "I/m/..i ,δ'/iιiίi ($. Sire1),λπΟ.. 1973 CfDK 386).Bi/qlm "Ilml.,; ,δ.ιφ (λ. Koksa1), Ankara 1981 CfDK 476).BiIkibίllm ΙΟΟιιιιιί/ι) "lίmIII'Ι CfDK), I.ιanbul 194$ CfDK 125).lIvdunbίllm "rimkli ,δ./iiIiί (S. V. Omek), Ankara 1973 CfDK 388).Ceza yar,,/αmα yδnιεπι; yιutUI terimJerl πδzΙαιv (Α. Erdoldu),

Ankara 1972 συκ 367).Cimnωι;k IerimIer; ιozΙUΙU (C, Alpman), Ankara 1969 (TDK 304).C;ifteker terimIer; soz/iJgii (Η. Bckensir). Ankara 1970 (ΤΟΚ 308).Dίlbi/giιί teliml.,; ,ό'/ίitίi (Υ. HatiboA!u), Ankara 1969 (TDK 300).D;Ibi/im I~rίm/I!r; soz/ίitii (TDK), Ankara 1949 (TDK 134).DίlbiIim νε d/IbiIgi.fi IerimIer; ιoz/iίliί (8. ν.rdar eI alίi),

Ankara 1980 (TDK 471).Dilίlbillm Ibiy%ji) "lι../.,ι (ΤDK), I.ιanbul 1948 (TDK 124).Di4l!m lerim/eri siizIiitiJ (C. SIdal), Ank.r. 1969 (ΤΟΚ 292).Edeb;yat ιιtt ΙΟΖ SOIUIIl IerimJ,r/ιδΖΙ;φί (TDK). lsιanbul 1948 (TDK 122).EjiIim "IΙnιI.,; ,όΖ/φ (λ. F. OAuzkan), Ankara 1974 CfDK 393).Fe/,./e "Ilml.,; 'δΖ/φ(Β. Akarιu), Ankara 1975 (fDK 4(8).FizίIι "I/m/.,i ,δΖlφ CfDK), Ankara 1983 CfDK 509). •FizίIιII/ klmy. tel/m/.,Ι,ό./φ(Ο. SinanoA!u), ληΟ.. 1978 CfDK 448).Gόkbillm teliml.,; ,ό.,.,. (λ. KwlIπnak), λπΟ.. 1969 CfDK 280).GtJs'erim saιuιιIarl terimJeri .rOzIutU (ο. Nutku). Ankara 1983 (ΤΟΚ 514).GiίmrίJk ,,11m/.,i ,δ./φ (Ι. KιzIk1I), Ankara 1972 CfDK 362).GίUl!.f ItrίmIrr; ιozlίΊIω (Ι. HarmandaJI), Ankara 1974 (mK 397).GΊΊZe/ sanaIIar ItrimIer;ιδΖΙΨ (Α. Turani). Ankara 1968 (TDK 274)Hub<1 dili ,όΖ/φ CfDK), Ankara 1965 CfDK 264).H./kbίli.. tellml.,; ,δ./φ (Ο. Acιpayam1I), Ankara 1978 CfDK 442)H.klmlik "ιι..ι.,ι k'/...... I CfDK). Ankara 1978 (fDK 447)./ιι.ιisιί/ι "ιί..ι..ι .ό'/iιiίi (ΤDK), Ankara 1983 (TDK 510).K..,bίlim ,,11m/..i ,δΖ/φ (R. Kel..), Ankara 1980 CfDK 474).Κ,/,(ΟΥ". ,,11m/..i ,ό./φ (S. ΤΟΥΙο), λπΟ.. 1970 (ΤDK 314).Kimya IerimIer; .rOzIiitfι (5. Οneή - Ο. Kuleli - Ο. Gϋrel), Ankara 1981 (TDK 485).KiIaplιkbi/im IerimIer; ιδzΙfιiiί (8. u. YurdadoI), Ankara 1974 (ΤΟΚ 394).Mαdenci/;k terίm/rr; k,Iavwzu (Ε. EιIίιer - Τ. Dϋndar

- Τ. ΟϋΥΟ8ϋΙοι), Ankara 1979 (TDK ~).

Mαn"k. Ier;mIer; ιδzΙUIίί (Τ. Grunbcrg - Α. Onart), Ankara 1976 (ΤΟΚ 428).MaIrmιιIik IertmJer; ιόzΙiιtίί (Ο. ζ:οker - Τ. K~y), Ankara 1983 (TDK 508).

. Mede"i Hukuk ter;"'/rr; sozIiJiii(Ι. Sungurbey), Ank.ra 1966 (ΤΟΚ 249).MeIDIbίlίm 41em trr/",Ier;ιozliιlα (Ε. Tekin), Ankara 1972 (TDK 351).Orια ogrelim terimIer; k,/avuzu (TDK), Ankara 1963 (TDK 218).Otunιobίl .....'.1 bίlgίιi ,,11m/..i ,ό.liitiΙ (Ι. Kuyumcu - Υ. Betorak), Ankara 1980 CfDK

475).D'/'flίmι< kιl...... CfDK), Ankara 1978 CfDK 446).R....t ΥαΖφ,.ΙΙ.. 'δ"iitίi (C. Ozιe1li), Ankara 1969 CfDK 282).RuJιbίlim ,.,iml.,; SΌtliitίi (Μ. En(), Ankara 1974 CfDK 391).&Jk Tίilk(. k,/.νoα.CfDK), λπnιa 1971 CfDK 322).S<petIopιι "Iim/..i ,ό./iiIiί (C. Aιabeyot!u), ληnιa 1969 CfDK 290).Sine"", "Ilml..; .δ./iitίi (Ν. ΟΖόπ), Ankara 1963 CfDK 210).SinenιιJ .. "ι..ί.yon "Ilml..i .δ./iiIiί (Ν. Ozόn), λnkaιa 1981 CfDK 467).Τ.ι... ""Im/"' Ι CfDK), lιtanbul 1949 CfDK 136).

491

ΤιuiJι wriml.,.; zδ'Ιίil" (8. 5. Baykal), Ankara 1974(ΤΟΚ 4(1).T«im.Ift4l;~.sιιyιιnuιιιJιk ~ gίίνencr /t'rim/rri SozliίΙiί(Μ. Uyguner ~ Η. Τuner). Ankar3 1972(TDK

3'70).Τ.tuιιIι: ,.,._ Ι (TDK), Ankara 1949(ΤΟΚ 135).TI,."ro wιlm/ιrί.δ,ιiitiΊ (Η. Taner - Μ. And - Ο. Nu.ku), Ankara 1966(ΤΟΚ 251).Τ~ I<r_1 SΔzliitiJ (ο. Ozankaya), Ankara 1975 (ΤΟΚ 415).nιr. wιlml.,.1 (ΤΟΚ), Iaιanbul 1948 (ΤΟΚ 126).Uf6ltIo,. αι.ιιοptl. mιuα lopu I,rimI,rj ιozJWΙϋ (8. Erdem), Ankara 1968 (TDK 276).υypiιιyιm ,.,.ImI.,.; .δzliitiΊ Ι σοκ), Ankara 1977(ΤΟΚ 441).r_ ί~/ΙΙi l<ιίιπΙ.,.ί SΔ,liitiΊ (Μ. υΥ8υηcι), Ankara 1971(ΤΟΚ 324).Υιφιι ωlιu, I<riml<riSΔ,IΦ (Μ. υΥ8υηcι). Ankara 1971 (ΤΟΚ 331).r_ dIII sδ'/iilίι (Α. R. Ondcr), Ankara 1966 (ΤΟΚ 252).Yαrbι _imkri ιδzlUΙίi (Τ. Ν. Gencan-H. Ediskun-B. Dϋrder-Ε. Ν. Gόk~n).Ankara 1974 (TDK

404),rorbllίm I<rίmkrl ΙΙΙ'ΙίiI" (Η. Ν. Pamir - Ο. OztunaII). Ankara 1971 (ΤΟΚ 320).rlltu_uίm I<rimkrj .δ,ΙίiI" (Μ. Scnccr), Ankar, 1981 (ΤΟΚ 482).Yιιwπιkoyιιmι ΙΙΙTiιnJ,,; πόzΙUΙ;; (Ν. IfItman), Ankara 1968 (TDK 267).~' I<rimkrj .δzΙiitiΊ (Ο. AcιpayaιnlI), Ankara 1976 (ΤΟΚ 424).ZιioIoji I<rimkri .δΖliitiJ (5. K,rol). Ank,r, 1963 (ΤΟΚ 209).staroιtov. L. Ν.

1970 "'Jazykoνaja revoIjucίja' ν sovrcmennoj Turcii", P,oblemy izuc,nijα jαΖΥkονοj situαcii i.. jazylcoνoj yoJI'os .. ιι,αnacIι ΑΖίί; Seνerrιoj Afriki. Moscow. 113-120.

5teucrwald. Κ ..1963 Unt,rnιclιιιιικm zur /iίrkisclren Sprαclιr Μ, GegenwαrI 1- Die Tiίrkischιo Sprαchp()IiIik s,i,

1918. Bcrlin. Rcνicw. G. Hazai ίη OLZ 60 (1965).176-177.1964 υΠI'Tsιιchrιn'~II ΖΙΙΤ tiίrlt.i.Jch~n Spracheιkr G~genwart 11- ΖιιτOrthographie und Luutung des

TίJrlt.uchen. Berlίn. Review: G. Hazai ίο OLZ 62 (1967), 61-62.1966 Un,nnιcJaιιιιιen Ζιιτ tίJrlt.ΊSc/wn Sprach~ der Gegί'nwαrt /11- Ζιιτ Abli)...ung de... αrιdιί."ι·hί'n ιιιιά

ιwrJucΙW" GrαmmαtiΙΙgutί's. Berlio. Review: G. Hazai ίο ΟΙΖ 64 (1969), 376--377.Szabc. Ι.

19S2 "Repeιιίon ΟΓ new developmenI1Twenty yean oflinguistic reform ίπ Turkey", Civili'''Dtion.f2/1.46-54.

Tadlau, F.1964 "Lan.uaae and ροΙίΙία: Turkish laπguage reform", Rί'νww ΟΙ Politics 26, 191-204.

Taηtut, Η, R. .1963 'Άtatϋrlι'ϋn diI ~IIfΠ1alan", Λιαιiιτlι ν~ ΤϊιrIι άίlΙ Ankara (TDK 224), Ι Ι 1-136.

Τκίπ, Τ.

1913 'ΆυΙiίΓIι νe dil refoπnu", Hac~tt~pί' SosyαJ ν~ Befer; BiIim/~r Dergisi 5.2, 10S----118.1975 .,AtιtOrk'On diI reformu", Λ 'αιiιτIι .ντίιηΙ~τίJ.miJJetJ"arιu, simpozywmu biJdiriJeri, Istanbul,

488-SOI (wiIh 8Π English summary).Teιιύι, λ.

1976 "Τύrk dil in~.jibI ϋz.criπc d",ϋncclcr", ΤΚ 14.165 (1976). 513-527.Τcνriίz, 5.

1975 "F.rklI ideolojik ιόιϋ,Ιύ ίΙιί pzcIenin kulIandtkIarr dil ϋZCrinc ΥβΡΙΙβΩ bir inceIemc",Haαtt~" SΩyαl ~ &Ieri Bilim/~r O~ΤKω 7/1-2, 98-104.

Τ....η.5.1983 "lsmeI lηόηϋΏύπ '02: Turk~' SΌylevi", ΤΟ 32.47.383, 477--481.

Timu ...... F.I96S D;I ιωναιl π Ζ;Υα Gόlιαlp. IsιanbuI.

1976 ''TίIrk~Iik cereyanInIn ιarihi", Ars,z αrmatαn', Istanbul. 328-339.1m Tίirlιl"",ίz ...yιιιιmιιιc,Ιιλ:. l.ιanbuI.

492

Turan. ~.

19R2 "TOrk Dil Kurumunun i,levj", ΤΟ 31.45.367, 3-12.1983 "TίιιIι~ίη OZICftirίlmcsi konusunda bίΓ deIerlendiππc",TD 32.46.378, 321-328.

Turran, Μ. Ν. - Spearman, D.1979 "Thc Turkish IanIuagc reform", Hislory Τodιιy (London) 29, 88-97,

TUrk. Dil Kιιτιιπιιιnιιιι

1972 r;;rk. DiI Kunιmunun 40 YI/,. ΑπΙιβΓ. (τΟΚ 154).Tiίr* Di/i /cin

1966---68 ΤiιτIι D;H Ιςίιι. ι-νι AnkaraΤ"τ* dilind,

1959 T",k ιJilinM ν, btJ.fkα ά;lI"ιk Ozlesme. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 176).ΤUrkerwKUnycl. Μ.

1978 "«lleri dil» ve «DίI transrerί» uzerine όη dίi$unceler", ΒίΙίιη. lciiJliir νe o;retim diJi olαrαkΤiιrkςί'. Ankara, 97~181.

OnaydIn, R. Ε.

1954 Αια'"τΙι. Tarih ve DiΙ KurιιmlQ1'1 ΗαιιταΙατ. Ankara (τΟΚ IS3).Uyguncr, Μ.

1981 "Υ,μΥ,η diI ΤύrkςeΥe dδnϋιιύr". TD 31.43.358. ~213.Uzina. Μ. S.

1980 "Ρυιίzm kak projavlenie nacionalilJΠa ν slovoIvor&ko] dejatelΏostίν lrane i Turcii (2θ-70w

c 8OOy)".ΝΑΑ 4. 136-139.Vadar. Β.

1979 "SόΖcϋk diίzenindc deIί$meler",/. Mill~ll"arιulliίrlcoloji k.ongr~si. Tebl;Iler: 1: ΤiιrIι dil; νe

,ιkbί.ναt,. Isιanbul, 539-543.VclidcdcoaIu. Η. V.

1972 /96/ ΑnαΥα,uωnmάίlΙ ΑπΙιβΓ. (TDK 357).Webster. D. Ε.

19Jq Rt'turlιifii·at;on. Hi.vlOryaΜ Iαnguαge relorm. ΤIu! Turkty οι Αιαι;;τ/(. SociαlΡrοgreπs ίn ι#ιe

Τιιrkί.vh r~/ormation. Philadelphia.Yafayan T"rk"emiz

1981 Yιlfαyαn Τϋrkς~mίΖ 1-111. (2. baskI.) Isιanbul.

Yusipova. R. R. - see Jusiρova

YuceI, Τ.1965 ΟΝ fkvrimi. IsIanbu1.1982 D;I dί'vrimi 'Ie -'oιιιιςlαrι. Ankara (ΤΟΚ 482).