How many languages should TRT broadcast?
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Ocak 15, 2009 00:00
There are intelligent ways to conduct a national conversation on ethnicity, language and the right to broadcast on radio and televison. There are also, well, less thoughtful ways to have this discussion. Attention is needed to assure that the former takes place in the emerging debate on Circassian, Laz and other languages in the mix offered by state broadcaster TRT.
As is well known, Turkey has legalized limited private broadcasting in the Kurdish language and as of two weeks ago, launched "Channel 6," the first 24-hour broadcasting in Kurdish dialects. This long-overdue decision has been widely hailed; we have joined in the salute.
Now a new challenge has emerged. If Kurdish language TV is a good idea, how about similar treatment of all the other languages spoken in Turkey? Last week Circassians formally requested their own state TV channel. Yesterday we reported that this has been followed by the Laz, whose language is akin to Georgian. The matter of the large size of Turkey’s Kurdish speaking citizenry, and the harshness with which this culture has at times been suppressed, may well augur unique treatment. But this issue of linguistic equity will only grow.
This turn of events was anticipated. For the languages spoken at home and informally in Turkey are many: Arabic, Syriac, Bosniac, Pomak, Bulgarian, Greek, Azeri, Georgian, to name a few. The matter of language is further complicated by inevitable debates on "dialect" and "language." Is Zazaki a dialect of Kurdish or a distinct language? Is Bosniac simply another name for Serbo-Croatian? Experts do not agree. Should the lack of a well-developed Romani grammar and literature for the dialect spoken by Turkey’s Roma disqualify them from rights to support from TRT? A difficult question.
Turkey is hardly alone in navigating these issues. Aggressive assimilation campaigns against the Sami people, sometimes called Laps, were waged in the countries of Scandinavia and even today broadcasting in the Sami languages is largely confined to radio. Sweden continues to debate whether "Scania" is simply a dialect of Swedish spoken in the southern regions of the country or a separate language.
The United Kingdom, with a rich tradition in state-sponsored broadcasting, began a public Welsh channel in 1982. Spain took a different course, launching private broadcast of Basque the same year.
All these issues, public vs. private broadcasting, use of the Internet, consensus on linguistic faultlines, need dispassionate consideration. Perhaps a parliament commission is the answer. Perhaps a study group empanelled by universities. There are many avenues. The critical issue as that these issues be considered in the aggregate. A piecemeal approach only guarantees rising antagonism. At the moment, this is the growing danger.
Now a new challenge has emerged. If Kurdish language TV is a good idea, how about similar treatment of all the other languages spoken in Turkey? Last week Circassians formally requested their own state TV channel. Yesterday we reported that this has been followed by the Laz, whose language is akin to Georgian. The matter of the large size of Turkey’s Kurdish speaking citizenry, and the harshness with which this culture has at times been suppressed, may well augur unique treatment. But this issue of linguistic equity will only grow.
This turn of events was anticipated. For the languages spoken at home and informally in Turkey are many: Arabic, Syriac, Bosniac, Pomak, Bulgarian, Greek, Azeri, Georgian, to name a few. The matter of language is further complicated by inevitable debates on "dialect" and "language." Is Zazaki a dialect of Kurdish or a distinct language? Is Bosniac simply another name for Serbo-Croatian? Experts do not agree. Should the lack of a well-developed Romani grammar and literature for the dialect spoken by Turkey’s Roma disqualify them from rights to support from TRT? A difficult question.
Turkey is hardly alone in navigating these issues. Aggressive assimilation campaigns against the Sami people, sometimes called Laps, were waged in the countries of Scandinavia and even today broadcasting in the Sami languages is largely confined to radio. Sweden continues to debate whether "Scania" is simply a dialect of Swedish spoken in the southern regions of the country or a separate language.
The United Kingdom, with a rich tradition in state-sponsored broadcasting, began a public Welsh channel in 1982. Spain took a different course, launching private broadcast of Basque the same year.
All these issues, public vs. private broadcasting, use of the Internet, consensus on linguistic faultlines, need dispassionate consideration. Perhaps a parliament commission is the answer. Perhaps a study group empanelled by universities. There are many avenues. The critical issue as that these issues be considered in the aggregate. A piecemeal approach only guarantees rising antagonism. At the moment, this is the growing danger.