Conference Agenda

Kurdish lexicography despite its long history remains on the margin of both the printed and digital worlds as the Kurdish discourse of nation state does. Linguistic exclusion and persecution of Kurdish has turned terminological documentation and compilation into a crusade for Kurdish lexicographers,. This paper is an attempt to show how discursively Kurdish lexicographers encounter the hegemonic language policy of one nation-one language ideology in multilingual Iran.

Ako Jalilian’s Kurdica (Jalilian, 1971, n.d. ) 7 volumes of which have been published in print, as a self-initiated comprehensive dictionary under way for more than three decades, would shed light on language preservation and development of Kurdish as the lexicographer's response to linguistic subjugation of Central and Southern Kurdish (C & S K) in Iran. He actively participates in the language maintenance, revitalization, reversal of language shift, language spread, and digitization as counter discourses of assimilation and acculturation, particularly in the region of Kermanshan where the language variety of Kermanshani (SK) faces existential threats by Persian. In other words, the lexicographer in the absence of and opposition to the official and institutional language policy, constructs a Kurdish sociolinguistic identity in the development of Kurdica and in so doing, casts light on the need for maintaining, reviving, modernizing, and digitizing Kurdish.

A discourse-based analysis will show that Jalilian’s Kurdica is a valuable compilation of Kurdish lexicons in print and their gradual conversion into digital version, stimulated by his enthusiasm and personal dedication is a counter discourse to hegemonic language ideology and its restrictive and repressive language policy reflected in the political, legal, educational, and mediatized systems in Iran.

This research adopts a comprehensive approach, encompassing critical, comparative, and historical perspectives, to delve into the evolution of Kurdish orthography, with a central focus on the pursuit of a unified writing system. Rooted in Quranic and Persian scripts, the Kurds embarked on a journey of script innovation during the 20th century, marked notably by experiments with Cyrillic and Armenian scripts. This pursuit gained heightened significance amidst the geopolitical challenges following World War I, shaping the destiny of Kurdish communities across newly established countries.

Presently, two dominant standard writing systems persist: a script derived from the Persian alphabet and the widely used Latin-based script. Although these predominantly represent Northern and Central Kurdish, they have, to varying degrees, overlooked the diverse dialects, their linguistic features, and textual heritage.

In the contemporary era, the imperative for a unified Kurdish identity accentuates the increasing importance of literacy across diverse Kurdish dialects. Advocating for a harmonized orthographic framework, this paper not only traverses historical trajectories but also delves into the resilience exhibited during attempts to adopt alternative scripts. The study seeks to bridge cultural gaps among speakers of different dialects, thereby safeguarding their collective linguistic and cultural heritage. Contextualizing its findings within the broader landscape of Kurdish identity growth, this research contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on linguistic revitalization and cultural cohesion within the Kurdish community.

Keywords: Kurdish orthography, linguistic diversity, cultural heritage, Standard writing system.

Kurdish is a multi-standard language, and the two dominant Kurdish dialects use two different writing systems. The Central/ Sorani Kurdish alphabet went through a chain of reforms during the last century and nowadays it has its alphabet system, which is much based on Arabic script. The reforms in Central Kurdish alphabet started by adding the Perso-Arabic special letters such as (گ), (پ), (چ), and (ژ) into Kurdish. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Some Kurdish newspapers started to publish in Sulaymaniyah – Iraqi Kurdistan, and schools in Kurdish were opened. So, the specific Kurdish letters such as (ڕ), (ڵ), (ۆ), (ێ), (ە) and (ڤ) were added to the Kurdish writing system. The same alphabet was used by the short-lived Republic of Kurdistan – Iran in 1946. On the other hand, after the foundation of the new republic of Turkey, the Turks started some reforms to purify Turkish language and they changed Turkish script from Arabic into Latin in 1928, and Arabic script was banned in Turkey in June 1930. Because most Kurmanji speakers fell apart into the newly founded Turkish state, they were much affected by the new law. So, Celadet Alî Bedirxan, linguist, writer, and the son of the last Emir of Emirate of Bohtan – Kurdistan, designed new Latin writing system for Kurmanji Kurdish, and applied in the Hawar magazine in 1932. However, the three Kurdish letters (Q, W, X) that they are not available in Turkish writing system, were also banned later. In this study, the formation and reforms of the Kurdish alphabet, political, social, and religious factors, will be discussed.

As cultural objects, dictionaries perform several types of cultural work. For example, they have the ability to influence knowledge legitimation: they exercise power as they assign value to knowledge by dictating what knowledge is valuable and trustworthy (the knowledge found in dictionaries) and what is not (the knowledge omitted by dictionaries). Dictionaries also create what Anderson (2006) calls “imagined communities” that can be defined as communities consisting of people who “will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (p. 6). Such communities are present in our lives even though most of the time we are unaware of them, and this invisibility, perhaps, makes imagined communities even more powerful.

Dictionaries’ connection to language policy has been discussed in lexicographic literature (Bergenholtz and Gouws, 2006; Ndlovu and Moyo, 2021; Tarp and Gouws, 2008). However, the question of who has the power to make lexicographic decisions connected with language policy has not been addressed. In this presentation, I will take a cultural studies approach to discuss creators of two dictionaries as policy makers in the context of tensions between descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive approaches to dictionary making in the US and Sweden as we navigate the shift to online environment(s) in which dictionaries are created and used.

References

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.

Bergenholtz, H., & Gouws, R. H. (2006). How to do language policy with dictionaries. Lexikos, 16, 13-45.

Ndlovu, E., & Moyo, W. (2021). The nexus between language policy and lexicography in Zimbabwe. South African Journal of African Languages, 41(3), 294-303.

Tarp, S., & Gouws, R. H. (2008). A lexicographic approach to language policy and recommendations for future dictionaries. Lexikos, 18(18), 232-255.

In Taiwan, the written form of Taiwanese using rebus or phonetic loan characters is frequently criticized as "Martian script" (hóe-chheⁿ-bûn or "Stylized Taiwanese"). This article focuses on the official Taiwanese linguistic landscape and investigates the controversy surrounding the use of Martian script in official Taiwanese promotional materials.

We conducted interviews with 15 respondents, presenting official Taiwanese promotional materials written in Martian script to explore their reasons for either supporting or rejecting its use in Taiwanese. These respondents' attitudes toward Martian script can be categorized into two groups: purists and liberals.

Purists advocate strict adherence to language standards and emphasize the importance of "learning the standard before you write." They view the standard as a symbol of power and prestige, linking it to language revitalization and education. Purists believe that non-standard written forms of Taiwanese language can devalue Taiwanese and reinforce biases against Taiwanese lacking a written form and standard. The standardization of Taiwanese, primarily a corpus planning endeavor, is nevertheless regarded as a crucial aspect of both Taiwanese language status planning and learning planning.

On the other hand, liberals take a "just do it!" approach, utilizing Martian script for its capacity to foster a sense of unity with their perspectives and its effectiveness in conveying the phonetics of Taiwanese, even if it sacrifices semantic clarity. Their choice to use Martian script also arises from their lack of familiarity with the standard, owing to the absence of Taiwanese literacy education.

The controversy surrounding Martian script in Taiwanese underscores the diverse societal perspectives arising from language standardization. Individuals make choices based on factors such as style, context, language status, reputation, and various motivations in the ongoing tug-of-war between standardization and linguistic diversity.

This article also discusses the implications of the Martian script controversy on sociolinguistics and language policy.