Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.286

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Hybrid language practices on Turkey’s national Kurdish television station: Iconic perspectives on form

Anne Schluter
Published Online: 2017-10-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0051

Abstract

The language policy of Turkey’s state-run Kurdish television station (TRT Kurdî) allows for Kurdish-Turkish hybridity, which reflects common practice among Turkish Kurds (Schluter, Anne. 2014. Competing or compatible language identities in Istanbul’s Kurmanji workplaces? In Kristina Kamp, Ayhan Kaya, Fuat Keyman & Özge Onursal-Beşgül (eds.), Contemporary Turkey at a Glance. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Local and Trans-local Dynamics, 125–137. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.) and promotes ownership among minority language speakers (Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Mixed language varieties of migrant adolescents and the discourse of hybridity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(1–2). 12–41.). Nevertheless, the mixing of Turkish and apparent disregard for Kurdish language rules has led some of the target audience to reject the station (Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Sociolinguistic situation of Kurdish in Turkey: Sociopolitical factors and language use patterns. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217. 151–180.). Such attention to form, according to (Lemon, Alaina. 2002. Form and function in Soviet stage Romani: Modeling metapragmatics through performance institutions. Language in Society 31. 29–64.) is usually reserved for minority language activists and dominant language speakers whereas marginalized minority language speakers frequently focus on function. Through semi-structured interviews with twenty politically engaged Kurdish migrants of Istanbul, the current study investigated metalinguistic criticisms about the station to deconstruct perceptions of the suitability of a hybrid Kurdish broadcasting language in relation to findings from (Lemon, Alaina. 2002. Form and function in Soviet stage Romani: Modeling metapragmatics through performance institutions. Language in Society 31. 29–64.) and (Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Mixed language varieties of migrant adolescents and the discourse of hybridity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(1–2). 12–41.). In contrast to (Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Mixed language varieties of migrant adolescents and the discourse of hybridity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(1–2). 12–41.), participants viewed linguistic hybridity on TRT Kurdî as iconic (Irvine, Judith & Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: ideologies, politics, and identities, 35–84. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.) of the Turkish state’s agenda to assimilate its Kurdish population. Furthermore, the transfer of this agenda onto a sub-group within the same in-group, TRT Kurdî’s producers, provided evidence of fractal recursivity (Irvine, Judith & Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: ideologies, politics, and identities, 35–84. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.). Results call for a broadening of Lemon (2002) to allow for the inclusion of a larger portion of minority language-speaking populations whose language, similar to the Istanbul-resident Kurdish community profiled in the current study, has been deeply politicized.

Keywords: Kurdish; media; metalinguistic comments; hybridity; iconization

References

  • Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Akyol, Mustafa. October 3rd, 2013. Erdogan deserves credit for democratization package. Al Monitor. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/tp-support-erdogan-aykol.html#. (3 February 2017).

  • Auer, Peter. 2007. Introduction. In Peter Auer (ed.), Style and social identities: Alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity, 1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Avineri, Netta. 2014. Yiddish endangerment as phenomenological reality and discursive strategy: Crossing into the past and crossing out the present. Language and Communication 38. 18–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Avineri, Netta & Paul V. Kroskrity. 2014. On the (re-) production and representation of endangered languages: Social boundaries and temporal borders. Language and Communication 38. 1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BBC News. June 9 2004. Turkish TV allows Kurds airtime. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3789913.stm. (18 November 2016.)

  • Bourhis, Richard Y., Howard Giles & Doreen Rosenthal. 1981. Notes on the construction of a subjective vitality questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2(2). 145–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bozarslan, Hamit. 2009. Le conflit Kurde [The Kurdish conflict]. Paris: Edition Autrement.Google Scholar

  • Brandt, Deborah & Katie Clinton. 2002. Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research 34(3). 337–356.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Canagarajah, Suresh (ed.). 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Clampitt-Dunlop, Sharon. 2000. Nationalism and native-language maintenance in Puerto Rico. International Journal of the Sociology of language 142(1). 25–34.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robert L. 1996 [1989]. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Coşkun, Vahap, Mehmet Şerif Derince & Uçarlar Nesrin. 2011. Scar of tongue: Consequences of the ban of the use of mother tongue in education and experiences of Kurdish students in Turkey. Diyarbakır, Turkey: DISA.Google Scholar

  • Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(i). 103–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Creese, Angela, Adrian Blackledge, Taşkın Baraç, Arvind Bhatt, Shahela Hamid, Li Wei, Vally Lytra, Peter Martin, Chao-Jung Wu & Dilek Yağcıoğlu. 2011. Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1196–1208.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fernandes, Desmond. 2012. Modernity and the linguistic genocide of Kurds in Turkey. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217. 75–98.Google Scholar

  • Friedman, Debra A. 2010. Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguist 31(3). 346–367.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • García, Ofelia. 2009. Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Robert Phillipson, Ajit K. Mohanty & Minati Panda (eds.), Social Justice through Multilingual Education, 140–158. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • García, Ofelia & Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Education, and Bilingualism. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Glastonbury, Nicholas. 2015. Specters of Kurdish nationalism: Governmentality and translation in Turkey. Critical Multilingualism Studies 3(1). 46–69.Google Scholar

  • Gunter, Michael M. 1997. The Kurds and the future of Turkey. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

  • Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. The invisibilisation of Kurdish: The other side of language planning in Turkey. In Stefan Concerman & Geoffrey Haig (eds.), Die Kurden: Studien zu ihrer Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur [The Kurds: Studies on their language, history, and clture], 121–150. Schenefeld: EB-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Hankins, Joseph & Rihan Yeh. 2016. To bind and to bound: Commensuration across boundaries. Anthropological Quarterly 89(1). 5–30.Google Scholar

  • Heper, Metin. 2007. The state and Kurds in Turkey: The question of assimilation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Mixed language varieties of migrant adolescents and the discourse of hybridity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(1–2). 12–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Içduygu, Ahmet, David Romano & İbrahim Sirkeci. 1999. The ethnic question in an environment of insecurity: The Kurds in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(6). 991–1010.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Irvine, Judith & Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities, 35–84. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaffe, Alexandra. 1999. Ideologies in action: Language politics in Corsica. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Jaffe, Alexandra. 2007. Discourses of endangerment: Contexts and consequences of essentializing discourses. In Alexandre Duchêne & Monica Heller (eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages, 57–75. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Jamison, Kelda. 2016. Hefty dictionaries in incomprehensible tongues: Commensurating code and language community in Turkey. Anthropological Quarterly 89(1). 31–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnstone, Barbara. 2008. Discourse analysis. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kelly-Holmes, Helen. 2001. Minority language broadcasting: Breton and Irish. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Kelly-Holmes, Helen. 2012. Multilingualism and the media. In Marilyn Martin-Jones, Adrian Blackledge & Angela Creese (eds.), Routledge handbook on multilingualism. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kickham, Elizabeth. 2015. Purism, prescriptivism, and privilege: Choctaw language ideologies and their impact on teaching and learning. (Unpublished Dissertation). Oklahoma: Department of Anthropology, The University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar

  • Kroskrity, Paul V. 2000. Language ideologies in the expression and representation of Arizona Tewa ethnic identity. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities, 171–192. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar

  • Kroskrity, Paul V. 2009. Language renewal as sites of language ideological struggle: The need for “ideological clarification”. In Jon Reyhner & Louise Lockard (eds.) Indigenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guidance, and lessons learned, 71–83. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar

  • Kroskrity, Paul V. 2014. Borders traversed, boundaries erected: Creating discursive identities and language communities in the village of Tewa. Language and Communication 38. 8–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Lemon, Alaina. 2002. Form and function in Soviet stage Romani: Modeling metapragmatics through performance institutions. Language in Society 31. 29–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liberman, Mark. October 24th, 2013. Turkey Legalizes the Letter Q, W, and X. Yay Alphabet. Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/24/turkey_prime_minister_erdogan_s_dedemocratizat_package_legalizes_letters.html. (3 February 2013)

  • Makoni, Sinfree & Alastair Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Martinez, Glenn A. & Peter R. Petrucci. 2004. Institutional dimensions of cultural bias on the Texas-Mexico border: Linguistic insecurity among heritage language learners. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1(2). 89–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • May, Stephen. Introducing the “multilingual turn”. 2014. In Stephen May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education, 1–6. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Moje, Elizabeth Birr, Kathryn Mcintosh Ciechanowski, Katherine Kramer, Lindsey Ellis, Rosario Carrillo & Tehani Collazo. 2004. Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39(1). 38–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nortier, Jacomine & Margreet Dorleijn. 2008. A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A socio-cultural style restricted to the Moroccan community? International Journal of Bilingualism 12(1–2). 125–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oakes, Leigh. 2007. Whose French? language attitudes, linguistic insecurity and standardization in Quebec. In Martin Howard (ed.), Language issues in Canada: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 64–86. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Sociolinguistic situation of Kurdish in Turkey: Sociopolitical factors and language use patterns. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217. 151–180.Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, Alastair & Emi Otsuji. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Pietikäinen, Sari & Helen Kelly-Holmes. 2011. Gifting, service, and performance: Three eras in minority-language media policy and practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21(1). 51–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poplack, Shana & David Sankoff. 1988. Code-Switching. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar & Klaus J. Mattheier (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society (2), 1174–1180. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Price, Monroe E. 2009. Satellite transponders and free expression. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 27(1). 1–35.Google Scholar

  • Purdue, Charles W., John F. Dovidio, Michael B. Gurtman & Richard B. Tyler. 1990. Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(3). 475–486.Google Scholar

  • Sakr, Naomi. 2002. Satellite realms: Transnational television, globalization, and the Middle East. London: I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar

  • Saraçoğlu, Cenk. 2009. ‘Exclusive recognition:’ The new dimensions of the question of ethnicity and nationalism in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(4). 640–658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Saraçoğlu, Cenk. 2011. Kurds of modern Turkey: Migration, neoliberalism, and exclusion in Turkish society. New York, NY: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar

  • Schluter, Anne. 2014. Competing or compatible language identities in Istanbul’s Kurmanji workplaces? In Kristina Kamp, Ayhan Kaya, Fuat Keyman & Özge Onursal-Beşgül (eds.), Contemporary Turkey at a Glance. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Local and Trans-local Dynamics, 125–137. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Schluter, Anne & Mahmut Sansarkan. 2014. Language choice as a function of power and solidarity in the Istanbul workplace. In Ahmet Içduygu & Z. Gülru Göker (eds.), Rethinking migration and integration: Bottom-Up Responses to Neoliberal Global Challenges, 127–175. Istanbul: The Isis Press.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, Britta. 2014. Salsa, language, and transnationalism. In Jan Blommaert, Ben Rampton, Anna De Fina & Marco Jacquemet (eds.), Encounters 3. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Sheyholislami, Jaffer. 2010. Identity, language, and new media: The Kurdish case. Language Policy 9. 289–312.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thackson, Wheeler M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected readings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Kurmanji/kurmanji_1_grammar.pdf. (15 February 2017)

  • Urla, Jaquelin. 2012. Reclaiming Basque: Language, nation, and cultural activism. Las Vegas, U.S.A.: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Ashley M. (2005). Fighting words and challenging expectations: Language alternation and social roles in a family dispute. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 317–328.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Woolard, Kathryn A. & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23. 55–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yağmur, Kutlay. 2004. Language maintenance patterns of Turkish immigrant communities in Australia and Western Europe: The impact of majority attitudes on ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 165. 121–142.Google Scholar

  • Zeydanlıoğlu, Welat. 2012. Turkey’s Kurdish language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217. 99–125.Google Scholar

  • Zeynel, Erdim. 9 March. 2009. Kurds “not fooled” by TRT6. Bianet News in English. (17 November 2012.)Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-10-25


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0051.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in