* This article is based on a paper presented at the Thirteenth University of Kentucky Foreign Language Conference.

¹ Hertz, Frederick, Nationality in History and Politics: A Study of the Psychology and Sociology of National Sentiment and Character (New York, 1944), p. 78Google Scholar.

² Heyd, Uriel, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism (London, 1950), p. 105Google Scholar; Muhiddin, Ahmed, Die Kulturbewegung in modernen Türkentum (Leipzig, 1921), p. 44Google Scholar. It has been noted that early evidences of national consciousness among the Turks of Central Asia also involved language and linguistics. See Akçuraoglu, Yusuf, Türk Yīlī (Turkish Year) (Istanbul, 1928), pp. 315–18Google Scholar.

³ It is significant that a similar situation with regard to language prevailed in Europe at the time nationalism first made its influence felt during the 18th and 19th centuries. See Hertz, op. cit., ch. III.

⁴ Gökalp, Ziya, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, translated and edited by Berkes, Niyazi (New York, 1959), p. 137Google Scholar. The passage is from an essay eventually published under the title “Türkçülük Nedir?” (“What is Turkism?”) in the book, Türkçülügün Esaslarī (Foundations of Turkism) (Istanbul, 1950)Google Scholar.

⁵ Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, p. 290.

⁶ Heyd, Uriel, Language Reform in Modern Turkey (Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

⁷ Türkçülügün Esaslarī, p. 99; Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, p. 297.

⁸ Hakimiyet-i Milliye, March 5, 1923.

⁹ Levend, A. S., Türk Dilinde Gelisme ve Sadelesme Safhalarī (Aspects of Development and Purification in the Turkish Language) (Ankara, 1949), pp. 367–70Google Scholar. Atatürk'ün Söylev ve Demeçleri (Speeches and Statements of Ataturk) (Ankara, 1952), II, 254–56Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Sevük, Ismail Habib, Dil Da'vasī (The Language Question) (Istanbul, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 23Google Scholar.

¹² See, for example, the discussion of Ziya Gökalp's program of linguistic reform, above.

¹³ The book was by Sadri Maksudi (Arsal) and was entitled Türk Dili Için (For the Turkish Language) (Istanbul, 1930)Google Scholar. See also Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 19Google Scholar; Levend, , op. cit., pp. 378–79Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 21Google Scholar. The debate is recorded in Birinci Türk Dil Kurultayī (First Language Congress) (Istanbul, 1933), pp. 272ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Birinci Türk Dil Kurultayī, pp. 455–56.

¹⁶ According to Levend, , op. cit., p. 388Google Scholar. Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 27Google Scholar, states that “by September 1933, when the first stage of the work was concluded, over 125,000 forms had been received at the Society's headquarters.”

¹⁷ Heyd, , Language Reform, pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 31Google Scholar. Significantly, the years 1933–35 also saw the imposition of a series of measures designed to weaken Islam as a social force.

¹⁹ Levend, , op. cit., p. 393Google Scholar.

²⁰ Türk Dili (Turkish Language), bulletin of the Language Society, No. 16 (04 1936), 9, 15Google Scholar. The foreword to the dictionary stated that these words had been discovered “in the work of theEtymology Committee.” “Those that were considered suitable were added to the Dictionary.” Ibid., p. 9.

²¹ Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 33Google Scholar; Türk Dili, No. 16, 22–23; Üçüncü Türk Dil Kurultayī (Third Turkish Language Congress) (Istanbul, 1937), p. 14Google Scholar.

²² Türk Dili, No. 16, 16. Along the same line, a review of Heyd's book on language reform (cited above) in Türk Dili, Vol. IV, No. 43 (04 1955)Google Scholar, denied that the publication of the pocket dictionary marked a retreat from “the high tide of purism.” “The Pocket Dictionary was not published for the purpose of turning back from this work [i.e., providing an exhaustive list of Turkish words]; on the contrary, it was [intended to] arrange and facilitate this work.” “Türk Dil Devrimi hakkīnda Yeni Bir Eser,” (“A New Work about Turkish Language Reform”), 412–413n.

²³ Ibid., No. 16, p. 17.

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 36ff, and No. 19 (August 1936), p. 2. This idea was in itself not new. The General Secretary of the Language Society himself stated that Mustafa Celalettin Pasa was the first to do research on the problem; ibid., No. 19, p. 3.

²⁵ In fact, the “evidence” of the language theory was used to support the History Thesis. See, e.g., Ibrahim Necmi Dilmen, “Türk Tarih Tezinde Günes-Dil Teorisinin Yeri ve Degeri” (“The Place and Value of the Sun Language Theory in the Turkish History Thesis”), Ikinci Türk Tarih Kongresi (Second Turkish History Congress), Proceedings, Istanbul, 09 20–25, 1937 (Istanbul, 1943), pp. 86–87Google Scholar. The History Thesis was first presented in Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarī (The Main Lines of Turkish History) (Istanbul, 1930)Google Scholar, and was then expanded to form the first volume of a four-volume set of textbooks for use in the secondary schools. A further parallel between the two “reforms” may be found in the organization of the Turkish History Foundation, under whose auspices the History Thesis was developed. This Foundation, like the Language Society, has held periodic congresses. Unlike its sister institution, it has developed into a more scholarly operation, particularly in recent years, and has sponsored the publication of valuable monographs and books in the field of Ottoman and Turkish history.

²⁶ Türk Dili, No. 16, 22n, 36; No. 19, 4.

²⁷ Heyd, , Language Reform, p. 34Google Scholar.

²⁸ Dilmen, I. N., “Günes-Dil Teorisinin Ilk Verimlerine Genel bir Bakis,” (“A General View of the First Results of the Sun-Language Theory”), Türk Dili, No. 19, 4Google Scholar.

²⁹ Levend, A. S. in Kurumu, Turk Dil, Dil Davasi (Ankara, 1952), p. 8Google Scholar. See also Sevük, Ismail Habib, op. cit., p. 29Google Scholar; Heyd, , op. cit., p. 34Google Scholar. Webster, Donald E. in The Turkey of Atatürk (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 244–245Google Scholar, pointed out that in 1935 the daily press undertook to use nothing but “pure” Turkish words, with the result that they suffered a “tremendous drop in circulation.” It was “admitted that the pace had been too severe.” The theory, he added, “in a sense has made thepure Turkish program seem unnecessary,” but predicted that the reform program would nevertheless go forward.

³⁰ In answer to a written question, Istanbul, February, 1956. See also his articles in his own newspaper Dünya (World), June 28–29, 1952. This interpretation is also supported by Ismail Habib Sevük, who argued that, like a good military commander, Ataturk knew how to retreat when necessary; Dil Da'vasī, p. 29. It has also been suggested that the pace of the reform was slowed down because official attention was occupied by international developments; Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, “Atatürk ve Dil Devrimi,” (“Ataturk and the Language Reform”) in Türk Dil Kurumu, Dil Davasī. Fuat Köprülü in a newspaper article in 1945 denounced the Language Society as a group of extremists and “fantastics” who knew nothing of the history or sociology of language. The Sun-Language Theory, he declared, had not the remotest connection with science. However, “there can be no doubt that it was useful from the practical point of view”; it was in fact conjured up when the purists found their aims impossible of achievement. See “Dil Meselesi” (“The Language Problem”), in the newspaper, Vatan, October 1, 1945. This stands in sharp contrast to Köprülü's remarks 13 years earlier at the First Language Congress when he defended the Society with equal vigor.

³¹ Heyd, , Language Reform, pp. 36–40Google Scholar.

³² Ibid., pp. 40–1.

³³ For an analysis of the changes made in the Constitution see ibid., pp. 41–43.

³⁴ Ibid., pp. 45–47.

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 48–52.