19世紀オスマン帝国における言語論争 : オスマン人のアイデンティティをめぐって

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In 19th century, as an attribute of nationality, there was great importance attached to language. Nationalists in the Balkans influenced by the thought of Herder, who had emphasized the importance of language as a crucial component of nationality, began to pay attention to their language. They, therefore, tried to purify it or to create a literary language. In the Ottoman Empire Semseddin Sami, who had access to nationalism in the Balkans, introduced the idea of language based on nationality. Furthermore, he denied the existence of "Osmanhca" and recommended to name it "Western Turkish". He also insisted that every nationality of the Empire should have its own language. His suggestion, however, was not accepted. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the language dispute in Tercuman-i Hakikat in 1882 and to explore the language ideas in those days. Through these ideas this paper aims to be the first stage in explaining the images of selfidentity of the Ottomans. The main participants of this dispute are Haci Ibrahim efendi, Tercuman-i Hakikat (Ahmed Midhat), Said bey, Ebuzziya Tevfik, and Recaizade Ekrem. This dispute quickly took the form of "Ibrahim vs others". The character of Ottoman Turkish was the main topic of the dispute with Tercuman-i Hakikat (Ahmed Midhat). Both of them accepted the idea that "Osmanhca" was the language of "Osmanh kavimi". There was, however, a disagreement between these writers. The disagreement was caused by what essence had priority in Osmanhca. Ibrahim as a devoted muslim stressed that the influence of Arabic should be considered a priority. On the other hand Tercuman-i Hakikat elavated the originality of Osmanhca and regarded it as nothing more than Osmanhca. It may be said that the order of priority in the essence of being "Osmanh kavimi" caused this difference. In the next dispute with Said bey, the point of discussion shifted to "Osmanhca vs Turkish". Said, who had a clear idea of language based on nationality, denied the existance of Osmanhca and regarded the language as Turkish. Ibrahim, on the other hand, denied the language to be Turkish by explaining the prosess of the formation of Osmanhca, i.e., the elements of Turkish had been eliminated in that process and many elements of Arabic had been introduced in their stead. Furthermore, Ibrahim suggested that, for the people of the Empire could not prove to be Turkish, they should regard themselves as the Ottomans and their language should be called "Osmanhca" not "Turkish". Ebuzziya had the same opinion as Said bey. Ebuzziya, who defined the difference between milliyet (nationality) and tabiiyet (citizenship) i.e., for him Osmanhhk is tabiiyet, Turkluk is milliyet, had the opinion that language should be based on milliyet. Yet when Ebuzziya talked about his identity, he said, "I am an Arab by genealogy, but my identity is in Turkishness". As illustrated by Ebuzziya's statement, his idea of milliyet or "Turk" is quite ambiguous. Ibrahim's target of criticism turned to Recaizade Ekrem. Ekrem denied the control of Arabic over Osmanhca which was an independent language. Moreover, he questioned the origins of Osmanhca and the influence from the other languages. He insisted that the present language should be accepted as it was. According to him, most languages had been changing for hundreds of years prior to their present state. It is clear that there were various types of language ideas concerning the role of Arabic in Ottoman Turkish or the character of Ottoman Turkish itself. Most intellectuals in those days are said to have accepted the concept of multi-identity, and this multi-identity, which was an ambiguous idea, created multiple definitions of language. From these varying ideas of language, some examples of self-identity of the Ottomans seem to be extracted. These examples, needless to say, are not enough to argue the issue of self-identity but give us a way to approach this issue.
1995-03-31

19世紀オスマン帝国における言語論争 : オスマン人のアイデンティティをめぐって

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク