DOI 10.1515/ijsl-2012-0047 IJSL 2012; 217: 1 – 18 Amir Hassanpour, Jaffer Sheyholislami and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas Introduction Kurdish: Linguicide, resistance and hope Amir Hassanpour: University of Toronto. E-mail:
[email protected] Jaffer Sheyholislami: Carleton University. E-mail:
[email protected] Tove Skutnabb-Kangas: Åbo Akademi University. E-mail:
[email protected] Finally Kurdish has made it to the pages of the International Journal of the Sociol- ogy of Language.1 This is an event in the history of Kurdish language studies. There is no article about the language in thirty-six years of publishing since 1974.2 And IJSL is not alone in its omission of Kurdish. In fact, this is the first time in the West that a whole issue of a linguistics journal is devoted to its study. If we move from journals to books, the picture does not change. Kurdish is visibly missing in the growing literature on the sociology of language and socio- linguistics even though in recent years research on the politics of the language (e.g., Hassanpour 2000; Olson 2009), its linguicide in Turkey (e.g., Hassanpour 1993; Skutnabb-Kangas and Fernandez 2008), Iran and Syria (Hassanpour, Skutnabb-Kangas and Chyet 1996), its struggles over standardization and official- ization (e.g., Hassanpour 1992), its use in the media (e.g., Sheyholislami 2010), its general description (e.g., Kreyenbroek 1992) or its gendered lexical heritage (e.g., Hassanpour 2005) has been published in books, dissertations and disparate jour- nal articles. In a “sociology of language” approach to the study of Kurdish, we may address questions about the precarious life of this language which many phi- lologists and linguists have ignored, quite often deliberately (Hassanpour 2000).