Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:47:53.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Literati and the Letters: A Few Words on the Turkish Alphabet Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

LAURENT MIGNON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the varied reactions of the Turkish literati and intelligentsia to the adoption of the Roman script imposed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1928. Though alphabet reform had been on the agenda for almost 75 years, few intellectuals and bureaucrats had been supportive of romanisation in the years preceding the move. However after the implementation of the reform, opponents remained silent or were seemingly converted. This article discusses the reasons behind the silence and conversion of the elites and the strategies of opposition developed by more radical defenders of the Ottoman script. Finally it records the impact of the reform on the literary world and literary historiography.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 11 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2009

Access options

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

References

1 Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, Bâbıâli (Istanbul, 1994 [1975]), pp. 14–15.

2 Most sources are in Turkish. However, Geoffrey Lewis gives a general survey of the history of and the debates about the so-called “alphabet revolution” (harf inkılabı) in his study of the Turkish language reform The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success (Oxford, 1999), pp. 27–39. More favourable is François Georgeon's article ‘Des caractères arabes à l'alphabet latin: Un pas vers l'occident?’ in Des Ottomans aux Turcs: Naissance d'une nation (Istanbul, 1995), pp. 199–221. In the context of his comparative study of the revival of Hebrew and the Turkish language reform, İlker Aytürk offers a critical analysis of the alphabet debate in his unpublished PhD thesis: Language and Nationalism: A Comparative Study of Language Revival and Reform in Hebrew and Turkish (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Brandeis University, 2005), pp. 202–229. See also the forthcoming article by the same author: İlker Aytürk, ‘Script Charisma in Hebrew and Turkish: A Comparative Framework for Explaining Success and Failure of Romanization’, Journal of World History, forthcoming.

3 Halide Edip Adıvar is known to have been very uneasy with Atatürk's autocratic style. Regarding the reform she wrote that “the martial way it was rushed into effect, the martial orders given for the time limit by a mentality which was purely that of a staff officer, indicated a lack of understanding of the most far-reaching change ever carried through in modern Turkish history”, Turkey Faces West (New Haven, 1930), p. 234.

4 Peyami Safa, Türk İnkılabına Bakışlar (Ankara, 1981 [1938]), p. 93.

5 Mustafa Şekip Tunç, ‘Yeni Harflerimize Dair’ in Tanzimat'tan Günümüze Alfabe Tartışmaları, ed. Hüseyin Yorulmaz (Istanbul, 1995), p. 308.

6 In İdeolocya Örgüsü (The Interweaves of Ideology, 1968), a political work, Kısakürek devoted a section to the “alphabet cause” (harf davası) and expressed his belated doubts about the necessity of the reform by questioning the reform's impact and its cultural consequences. Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, İdeolocya Örgüsü (Istanbul, 1994 [1938]), pp. 322–325.

7 The book was originally published in 1969: Ergun Göze, Peyami Safa Nazım Hikmet Kavgası (Istanbul, 1969).

8 Ergun Göze, Peyami Safa Nazım Hikmet Kavgası (Istanbul, 1995 [1991]), p. 78.

9 Beyatlı was ambassador for the newly founded Republic of Turkey in Poland (14.06.1926–14.03.1929), Spain (22.05.1929–25.03.1932) and Pakistan (13.01.1948–27.12.1948). From 1934 to 1943 he was a Member of Parliament for the ruling Republican People's Party. After three years as “Advisor on Aesthetics” (Estetik müşavir) for his party, he was re-elected in 1946.

10 Sermet Sami Uysal, Şiire Adanmış bir Yaşam: Yahya Kemal Beyatlı (Istanbul, 1998), p. 200.

11 Yahya Kemal Beyatlı, ‘İmlâya Dâir Güft ü Gû’, Edebiyata Dâir (Istanbul, 1971), pp. 90–96. The article was published originally in Dergâh magazine in 1922.

12 Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, Edebiyat Notları (Istanbul, 2004 [2002]), pp. 214–215.

13 Agâh Sırrı Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri (Ankara, 1972 [1949]), p. 154.

14 The major texts about the alphabet debate can be found in Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., p. 308.

15 Quoted in Agâh Sırrı Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri (Ankara, 1972), p. 401.

16 The complete list of members can be found in Bilâl N. Şimşir, Türk Yazı Devrimi (Ankara, 1992), p. 88.

17 Falih Rıfkı Atay, Çankaya (Istanbul, 2004 [1968]), p. 479.

18 Bilâl N. Şimşir, Türk Yazı Devrimi (Ankara, 1992), p. 161.

19 İlker Aytürk, ‘The First Episode of Language Reform in Turkey: The Language Council from 1926 to 1931’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 18, Part 3 (2008), pp. 279–280; Aytürk, ‘Language and Nationalism’, p. 224.

20 The texts of the responses are available in Yorulmaz (ed.), op cit., pp. 194–232.

21 Some writers, such as Macid Pasha, even argued that the Armenian alphabet should be adopted. See, Rekin Ertem, Elifbe'den Alfabe'ye (Istanbul, 1991), p. 258.

22 Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil, ‘Latin Harfleri Kabul Etmeli Mi, Etmemeli Mi?’, in Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 206–213.

23 Ali Ekrem Bolayır, ‘Latin Harfleri Kabul Etmeli Mi, Etmemeli Mi?’, in Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 195–197.

24 Dilruba Çatalbaşı, ‘Freedom of Press and Broadcasting’, in Human Rights in Turkey, ed. Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat (Philadelphia, 2007), p. 22.

25 Dücane Cündioğlu, ‘Âkif Niçin Mısır'a Gitti?’, Âkif'e Dâir (Istanbul, 2005), pp. 12–15.

26 Quoted in Rekin Ertem, Elifbe'den Alfabe'ye (Istanbul, 1991), p. 167.

27 He reiterated his faith in the necessity of romanisation in his article ‘Lisanımızın İhtiyaçları’ (The Needs of our Language), published in Servet-i Fünun on 27 August 1925. (Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 187–193).

28 On radical advocates of westernisation see Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, ‘Garbcılar: Their Attitudes toward Religion and their Impact on the Official Ideology of the Turkish Republic’, Studia Islamica, 86 (1997), pp. 133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 The short story ‘Hayât-i Muhayyel’ in the collection of the same name is a remarkable variation on Thomas More's Utopia. Hüseyin Cahid, ‘Hayât-i Muhayyel’, Hayât-ı Muhayyel (Istanbul, 1898).

30 Ö. Faruk Huyugüzel, Hüseyin Cahit Yalçın’ın Hayatı ve Edebi Eserleri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma (Izmir, 1984), p. 35.

31 Lewis, Geoffrey, The Turkish Language Reform (Oxford, 1999), p. 32Google Scholar.

32 Hüseyin Cahit had been invited by the editor of Resimli Gazete, who opposed romanisation, to publish this article. It was printed on 22 September 1923 (Lewis, op. cit., p. 3). The article can be found in Yorulmaz (ed.), op.cit, pp. 94–107.

33 Ahmet Haşim, ‘Şiir Hakkında Bazı Mülâhazalar’, Piyâle (Istanbul, 1926), pp. 4–13.

34 Ahmet Haşim, ‘Les tendances actuelles de la littérature turque’, Bütün Eserleri: Gurabahâne-i Laklakan Diğer Yazıları (Istanbul, 1991), p. 196.

35 Ahmet Haşim, ‘Harf İnkılâbı’, Bütün Eserleri: Bize Göre İkdam'daki DiğerYazıları (Istanbul, 1991), p. 152. The article was published originally on 22 August 1928.

36 Ahmet Haşim, ‘İntikal devri’, op.cit, p. 161.

37 Celal Nuri İleri, ‘Latin Harfleri Meselesi’, in Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 298–299.

38 Nurullah Ataç, Günce [1953–1955] (Ankara, 1972), p. 16. Ataç underlines that poets such as Ahmet Haşim had been the heralds of literary modernity, but that modernity estranged contemporary readers from them.

39 Serif Aktas, Refik Hâlid Karay (Ankara, 1986), p. 35.

40 There is a lot of uncertainty on the issue whether he actually finished the translation. Moreover there is another controversy regarding the reasons that led him to refuse to submit the translation. A summary of this discussion can be found in Cündioğlu, Âkif'e Dâir, pp. 16–26.

41 Zeki Sarihan, Mehmet Akif (Istanbul, 1996), p. 204.

42 İlker Aytürk, ‘Script Charisma in Hebrew and Turkish’, Journal of World History, forthcoming.

43 For an analysis of the impact of the reform on the press see Şimşir, op. cit., pp. 225–228.

44 Fikret Adil, Asmalimescit 74: Bohem Hayati (Istanbul, 1988 [1933]), p. 76.

45 Peyami Safa, Büyük Avrupa Anketi (Istanbul, 1938), p. 160.

46 Quoted in Beşir Ayvazoğlu, Peyami: Hayatı, Sanatı, Felsefesi, Dramı (Istanbul, 1998), p. 105.

47 Meral Alpay, Harf Devriminin Kütüphanelerde Yansıması (Istanbul, 1976), pp. 52–53.

48 Celal Nuri, ‘Latin Harfleri Meselesi’, in Yorulmaz (ed.), op. cit., p. 299.

49 Ergün Göze, op. cit., p. 80.

50 Ahmet Haşim, ‘İntikal Devri’, op. cit., p.161.

51 Rekin Ertem, op. cit., pp. 359–360.

52 The minutes and proceedings of the Congress were published in Birinci Türk Neşriyat Kongresi (Ankara, 1939).

53 Rekin Ertem, op. cit., p. 362.

54 ‘Aziz Nesin’ in ‘Yeni Türkçeye Çevrilecek Yapıtlar’, <www.nesinvakfi.org> (accessed 25 July 2009).