The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success by Geoffrey Lewis Mohammed Sawaie The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. By Geoffrey Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pp. 190. ISBN 0199256691. $24.95. This book consists of twelve chapters. Ch. 2 (5–26) is a treatment of Ottoman Turkish, its historical development as it extensively incorporated elements from Arabic and Persian, and the attempts of [End Page 896] various individuals to reform this language. Ch. 3 (27–39) discusses the change in the writing system from the Arabo-Persian to a modified Latin alphabet and its final imposition by Mustafa Kamal Atatürk, founder of the Turkish Republic, on all literate Turks in June 1929. Ch. 4 (40–56) discusses Atatürk’s personal involvement in language reform until 1936 and his fervent attempts to purge Turkish of foreign elements. Ch. 5 (57–74) examines the role of nationalism in adopting linguistic theories that are in line with nationalist ideologies. Hermann F. Kvergić, a Viennese linguist, advanced the theory ‘that Turkish was the first human language to take shape’ (57),which was immediately adopted by Atatürk. Such nationalistic views were perhaps behind his insistence on the purity of Turkish. Ch. 6 (75–93) discusses the contribution of three individuals, Falih Rıfkı Atay, Nurullah Ataç, and Aydın Sayılı, not only to coining vocabulary items, but also to making these coinages accessible to the public via various media. Ch. 7 (94–106) examines the prefixes and suffixes used in, or invented for, the creation of pure Turkish words. Ch. 8 (107–23) treats neologisms, some obsolete, others still current, and provides discussion of the three methods prescribed to generate indigenous Turkish lexical items, which, Lewis asserts, were often violated. A list of controversial or otherwise interesting neologisms is presented in this chapter with their dates of introduction. Ch. 9 (124–32) provides a treatment of terms coined by the Turkish Language Society for technical and specialized subjects (statistics, metallurgy, volleyball, etc.) and available in glossaries. Many such items, according to L, are ignored in recent dictionaries. Ch. 10 (133–39) is a brief treatment of the flow of primarily English, and secondarily French, words into today’s Turkish. Words like süpermarket, kalite kontrolü (Eng. quality control) are another example of foreign elements that Atatürk did not anticipate. Ch. 11 (140–52) discusses the status of New Turkish and whether language reform has impoverished the language. And, finally, Ch. 12 (153–68) examines the fate of the Language Society which had Atatürk’s support since its founding in 1932. The ups and downs of this society are delineated. L also mentions other language societies whose creation was motivated by various ideologies. L characterizes Atatürk’s movement to change the speech habits of a nation and their writing system as a form of ‘language engineering’. He grudgingly accepts the term ‘language reform’; his preference would have been ‘language revolution’. The attempt to purge Arabic and Persian grammatical features and lexical items from Turkish dates back as far as the thirteenth century (10). However, calls by individuals and private groups for purging Turkish of foreign elements began in earnest in the nineteenth century. Such efforts by Atatürk, L asserts, are not unique to Turkish; other languages underwent similar experiences at different times, for example, German, Swedish, Hungarian, Finnish, and Albanian, among others. This book documents the obstacles and the successes that the various Turkish institutions, government-sponsored as well as private, struggled with to bring Turkish to its present state. Atatürk’s efforts undoubtedly faced strong opposition, especially from religious establishments and adherents to Ottomanism. While there are brief references to such opposition, a fuller treatment would have enhanced this book considerably. Nevertheless, L’s objectives of acquainting the general reader with the Turkish language reform and providing students of Turkish with useful stimulating reading (1) are successful. Mohammed Sawaie University of Virginia Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America