Turkmen Literacy, Language, and Power, 1904-2004
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REWRITING THE “NATION”: TURKMEN LITERACY, LANGUAGE, AND POWER, 1904-2004 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Victoria Clement, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Nicholas Breyfogle, Adviser Professor Eve Levin ______________________________ Professor Harvey J. Graff Adviser History Graduate Program ABSTRACT Language is politically invested, and a speech community's administration of its language and alphabet marks, constructs, defines, and expresses its identity. Among the Turkmen people of Central Asia, language policies and alphabet reforms have epitomized continuous efforts to build a national community in the contexts of the tsarist empire, Soviet rule, and independence. Through an examination of language policy, planning, and reform from the 1904 to 2000, my study contributes a new historical perspective on the formation of Turkmen identity; our knowledge more generally of the role of language in expressing and constructing self throughout the exigencies of various political eras; and advances Eurasian and Soviet historiography by illuminating the often absent Turkmen perspective. This study links Turkmenistan's contemporary efforts at post- Soviet language reforms with the earlier Turkmen lexicographic and orthographic work (especially 1910s-1930s), which laid the foundations for the modern Turkmen identity. As contemporary Turkmen struggle to negotiate a postcolonial identity and sort out their place in the international community, my dissertation's examination of Turkmen language evolution over the last century supplies needed historical context to current language renewal efforts and Turkmen identity construction. ii DEDICATION This “report” would not have been possible without the support of my parents, who had the foresight to send me to Russia as early as 1985. Especially my Mom, who had the courage to accompany me then and to help with massive photocopying and note- taking in the British Public Records Office. Many thanks, and sisterly affection, to Tina and Keith, who at various times provided laughter, company, a room, and solace. Most of all, thank you for giving us Donovan. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Neither this dissertation nor my tenure at Ohio State University would have been possible without the dedication and encouragement of Eve Levin. She gave of herself both before and after she was my official advisor. Her dedication to the field of Russian History is unsurpassed. Her dedication to me has made me a scholar. I thank my adviser Nick Breyfogle. We grew into this dissertation together. Nick is now one of very few people to have words like “Türkmençilik” in his active vocabulary. I am so very proud to call myself his student. Also, thanks to Gillian, Charlie and Sam, who graciously shared Nick. Dona Straley contributed in remarkable ways to the quality of this project and my time at OSU. Most notably, she took time out of her own busy schedule to read Turkmen newspapers with me and ensure that I understood the Arabic script. Harvey J. Graff was the last member of my committee to join. Endlessly patient, he has taught me a great deal in a short amount of time. I am so glad to know him. My mentor, Audrey Altstadt, and many friends read versions of chapters. My thanks to Karen Huber, Glenn Eric Kranking, Pam Pennock, Bob Pennock, Nick Steneck, Dustin Walcher, and Jim Weeks. Brian Pollins acted as a sounding board for many ideas treating each one as fascinating. His influence has been important, and uplifting. iv Colleagues invited me to conferences, shared dinners, and offered general support. They each also contributed a book or project that I cannot live without. They include Laura Adams, Adrienne Edgar, David Christian, Stephen Dale, Michael Dennison, William Fierman, Mark Jacobs, Shoshana Keller, Paula Michaels, Walter Mignolo, Douglas Northrop, Michael Ochs, Daniel Prior, Jeff Sahadeo, Uli Schamiloglu, and David Tyson. I also benefited greatly from the generosity of colleagues at seminars and workshops. These have included the Midwest Russian History Workshop; the Workshop on Central Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison; the Social Science Research Council Dissertation Workshop on Central Asia; the Oxford Society for Central Asia, which hosted the Turkmenistan Workshop in 2004; Central Asia Research Network (CARN),Central Asian Studies Society (CESS); and The Ohio State University’s Graduate Student Interdisciplinary Seminar on Literacy Studies. In Turkmenistan, the members of the Türkmenistanyň Döwlet Golýazmalar Institut (Turkmen State Manuscript Institute) provided an office and a congenial atmosphere. The special holdings department at the Turkmen State Library helped me search for journal and newspaper articles for nearly two years. They miraculously never tired of my questions. v VITA 2000-2005………………………………………...…..…Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, Ohio State University 1999……………………...……………...…M.A. Russian History, Ohio State University 1999………………...M.A. Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. “Garaşsyzlygyň Türkmen milli medeniýet ýoluny açyşy” [How Independence opened roads for Türkmen national culture], Türkmen Dili, (Turkmen Language), March 15, 2003, p. 3. 2. “Türkmenistan,” CultureGrams (electronic encyclopedia), Axiom Press, 2003. 3. “Türkmenistan—History,” Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, David Levinson & Karen Christiansen, et al. eds. (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 2002), pp. 11-13. 4. “Türkmenistan,” Countries and Their Cultures, Melvin Ember and Carol R. Ember, eds. (New York: MacMillan,Reference USA, 2001), Vol. 4, pp. 2275-2287. 5. “Iş we maşgallar,” [Career and families: An American Perspective], Owadan, (Turkmen women’s journal), May 1997, p. 13. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………..ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………….……… iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………….iv Vita…………………………………………………………………………………………vi Chapters: 1. Introduction……....…………………………………………………………………1 2. The ABCs of Modernity: Turkmen Literacy and Jadidism, 1904-1926……..…….21 3. Partners to Persecution: Turkmen Intellectuals in Soviet Space, 1926-1936..……..64 4. Sovietization via Cyrillicization, 1936-1990…………..………………………….113 5. The Geopolitics of Language and the Birth of Independent Turkmenistan, 1991-1999……………………………………..………………………………….142 6. Bilimli Nesil: Education in Nyýazow’s Golden Era, 1999-2004……………..…..162 7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..191 Appendix A Turkmen Ili journal, 1923….………………………………………………193 Appendix B Unified Turkic Alphabet, 1927…………………………………………….194 Appendix C Turkmenovedenie, No. 7-8, 1928………………………………………….195 Appendix D Latin-based Turkmen alphabet, 1995…………………………………...…196 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………...197 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Local Histories/Global Designs: Turkmen Alphabet and Language Reform Turkmenistan entered the twenty-first century amid a fervor of alphabet and language chaos. People went to sleep registered at Улица Первогo Мая, but woke up on Görogly Şaýolu.1 In January 2000 the government of Turkmenistan began full-scale implementation of a 1993 Presidential decree that Turkmenistan would adopt a Latin-based writing system in place of the Cyrillic alphabet it had used since 1940. It was a radical break with the past. Street signs, like other public texts (newspapers, textbooks, maps, license plates), transformed from a Soviet script and language content to a Turkmen national format. For some citizens, this was the third alphabet of their lifetime. It was the most recent episode in a centuries-long process of reforming the Turkmen language to suit socio-political circumstances and using alphabet to symbolize and define a Turkmen identity. This policy challenged literacy at the most basic level. Daily tasks of reading the newspaper, understanding the headlines in television news, complying with tax notices, or knowing what the schoolteacher wrote on the board during a parent meeting became serious challenges. This project explores why the state spend time, energy, and money to change this basic facet of life when most adults knew how to read and write in Cyrillic. Concurrent with the 2000 script reform, the government, led by President Saparmyrat Nyýazow, reduced the role of Russian language and raised the status of Turkmen in its place. Most governmental and professional fields had been conducted in Russian during the USSR. The change in 1 “May 1st Street,” in Russian, a socialist holiday; “Göroglu Avenue,” named for the Turkmen folk hero. 1 language status forced teachers, journalists, politicians, engineers in the gas and oil industries, doctors and scientists to retool their vocabulary and reformulate their discourse in Turkmen ways. The approximately thirty-percent of the population who were ethnically non-Turkmen, as well as some Turkmen, who had never studied the Turkmen language, enrolled in language classes or faced unemployment. Here, I explore why a government would enact policy that threatened its people’s literacy and ability to function in society. This study examines the political, cultural, and social contexts in which Turkmen writing transformed from 1904-2004. This language history illustrates continuities between pre-revolutionary Russia and the post-1917 Soviet Union, fluidity in center-periphery relations in the Russian empire, and