PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

not moved beyond the Ottoman centext: the capital set the tone. In explaininghis canons of Turkish usage, Seyfettin offered a hierarchy of categroiesof people in istanbul, suggesting that social classes have a language,not the people as a vvhole. included vvere groups as diverse as oldstyle poets, experts in Islamic studies (ulema) and students of theology(softa). Teachers vvho taught old usage, conservative government employeesvvho kept the Bab-i Ali style (the bureaucratize?) alive, vvomen vvhovvere not vvell-educated, foreigners and non -Turks- ali had a claim to istanbulTurkish. Nevertheless, the refined istanbul usage had to prevail.Ömer Seyfettin's prioritizing istanbul puts emphasis on achieving a viablestandard form, but the idea of a Turkish national language had a verynarrovv foundation from vvhich to grovv, if it vvas to grovv at ali.Follovving the declaration of the Republic, institutional reforms vvereintroduced individually, as the right moment allovved for the move. Specificdates record the changes. The case of language reform presents anextended process. Even as other reforms vvere ushered, they had to be explainedthrough language. Language reform vvas interactive vvith the implementationof other reforms. Curiously, changes in nomenclatureskipped the BIG achievement that vvas already in place by the time otherreforms rolled along. What did it mean to have a Republic-a Cumhuriyet?It did not matter that the word vvas of Arabic origin: it vvas suffıcient thatit did not stem from the Ottoman past and it conveyed the sentiment ofshared responsibility and freedom. The emotional vveight of vvords issuch that once introduced as CUMHURİYET, it is inconceivable that anothervvord can be used in reference to the Turkish Republic.The Republic represented the success of a massive effort against foreigninvasion and occupation. It vvas a secular jihad. The energy it releasedsvvept avvay the debris of traditional institutions and usheredchanges in form and content. The nevv Turkish state shed its Ottoman heritagein stages reinforced by changes in language. The language issuevvhich had been peripheral and auxiliary in the crumbling Ottoman empirebecame the deep reaching instrument used to chisel and define Turkishidentity. Language acquired priority in determining identity only afterthe shattering of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman linguistic policy tovvardsdifferent ethnic communities, parallel to its religious policy, vvas, on thevvhole, one of lack of interference, attributable to, from various perspectives,to practicality, tradition, indifference, or even liberalism.Communities, ethnic or religious, including Turks and Arabs andKurds and Jevvs and Greeks and Armenians and bulgars and serbs andothers performed their religious services in a language that might ormight not be the vernacular. The construct that vve refer to as the Ottomanlanguage vvas an administrative tool that distinguished civil servants fromthe masses, but beyond that vvas not an exclusive defıner of identity. Thusthe potential separation of the realm of religion from the realm of every-800