Latinization of the Kazakh Language
Kazakhstan intends to switch the state language to the Latin script. This transition will take 12-15 years and be based on the experience of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. It will be implemented in 6 stages.
This plan stirred many disputes and arguments – in particular, Russia and a part of Kazakhstan’s Russian-speaking population considers switching to Latin as an adverse move against them, as the Latin alphabet supposedly is less understandable than the Cyrillic one. The ones who support it refer to closer integration into the world information space and reform of Kazakh language, which historically has already had three alphabets – Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic.
Adam Kesher in his personal blog writes [ru] that switching Kazakh to Latin can be a benefit since the language will get the chance to become more flexible and functional.
“It may allow for simplification of Kazakh grammar and reduce the number of letters, as well as ease up digitization, which is very important at this IT-driven epoch. Kazakh language can become readable throughout the world and give an educational raise within the country by promoting the level of literacy of the population and its willingness to study languages where Latin alphabet is used - consequently enriching the intellectual potential, providing that Russian language retains its status”, he says.
But still there are two things that he is concerned about:
First point is that, according to the Government’s calculation, the cost will make up only $300 million. This calculation included re-training and mere replacement of signs – but, this work should include also tremendous work of scientific researches, monitoring, standardization and control, not to mention compulsory translation of existing Kazakh and world literature classics into newly-scripted Kazakh.
Secondly, for some reason the Government has chosen the most unsuccessful Uzbek model for the transition – the model that is still not completed and believed to be failed, because it has caused linguistic chaos in Uzbekistan. Adam has got an impression that the plan is deliberately sabotaged either in order to steal the money, or to discredit the idea, or the sum of all listed above.
on December 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I’m looking forward to this. As a student of Turkish I have a vested interest in seeing the language I’m learning attain a stronger status throughout the world, and Latinization of Kazakh will make the Turkish I’ve learned even more useful. I’m also interested in breaking down linguistic barriers throughout the world and a switch to the Latin alphabet is a good thing in this way as well. There’s nothing wrong with Cyrillic of course, there’s just no momentum on its side anymore so it’s time to go with the Latin script and achieve a critical mass.
on December 12th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
For Kazaks, latinization is the same as switching to Cyrillic many years ago. Previous one was forced by political reasons, and the later one is mainly concerning economic issues.
Both of them have less relation with linguistic advantage or disadvantage. Latinization may provides a forward step in IT technology, but it is not strong enough to avoid all the obstacles.
However, Kazaks must make efforts in latinization, it is the only hope to keep distance from a strong neighbor. Otherwise, Russians will soon come again to control the economic of the new country.
on December 12th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
The change from Cyrillic to Latin in Uzbekistan has both succeeded and failed, I think. It has certainly created two forms of written Uzbek, making it so that the Uzbeks of Kazakhstan and other ‘Cyrillic’ neighborhoods are unable to read the magazines and books from Tashkent. However, the same goes for those Uzbeks still clinging to the altered Arabic script in some places in Afghanistan.
My question is: what model of Latinization will Kazakh [Qazaq] follow? The one previously attempted in the 90s, the Turkish style with umlauts and other non-English-standard characters, or the infinitely more English-friendly Uzbek style, with no letters not in English, and only the addition of appostrophes to mark non-standard vowels?
on December 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“However, Kazaks must make efforts in latinization, it is the only hope to keep distance from a strong neighbor. Otherwise, Russians will soon come again to control the economic of the new country.”
Soon… They are already back!
I don’t think Russian economic influence depends much on the alphabet that is being used for the Kazakh language really. I mean, Russia has strong economic leverage in non-Russian countries that did big efforts to ban Russian and Cyrillic from public life (e.g. Georgia, Latvia, … ).
It is rather a question of economic geography, a common Soviet-colonial experience and the common mindset that goes with it. Plus the fact that over a third of Kazakhstan’s population are ethnic Russian, that many more are assimilated into russianness, while many urban Kazakhs have de facto Russian as their mother tongue.
This being said, I think that the latinization of Kazakh Turkish could benefit/strengthen the Kazakh identity and the Kazakhs as a nation. That, and a bigger role for Islam in the Kazakh identity.
I am in favor of taking the more sophisticated Turkish Latin alphabet as it was done, in part, for Turkmen in Turkmenistan (even though there, the latinisation and ‘turkmenisation’ was done, in part, to cut off the public asap from relatively freeer Russian sources of information). It is there, it is adapted for Turkish sounds, and the IT and printing technology in Turkish already exist.
I find the way Uzbek has been latinized in Uzbekistan, just like the rest of the ‘cultural identity’ imposed by the regime, completely sterile and characterless.
“It has certainly created two forms of written Uzbek, making it so that the Uzbeks of Kazakhstan and other ‘Cyrillic’ neighborhoods are unable to read the magazines and books from Tashkent.”
Yes it’s the same with the Kurds. Kurdish in Turkey is written in Turkish-Latin (which was imposed); in a modified Arabic in North Iraq, Iran and Syria; and in modified Cyrillic among the Yezidi Kurds in Armenia and Kazakhstan though the latter groups are marginal. Or with the Uighurs: those in Kazakhstan use modified Cyrillic, their brethren in China modified Arabic (that is actually also another example of two different alphabets that were maintained to avoid that ethnic kin would foster too much cross-border contacts).
on January 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I’m always interested in the ways orthographies change and what choices are made. And in almost every case, change is instigated for political reasons.
No one alphabet is inherently any “better” than another, and any language can be written accurately with the Cyrillic, Latin, Arabic, Devenagari, etc. scripts (with some modifications, of course). Look at Serbian vs Croatian, or Hindi vs Urdu; script choice is based on political or cultural allegiance. One could write English in a modified version of the Balinese script. On linguistic grounds, it is phonemic representation, consistency of roots, and economy which are important. In human terms, there is so much more to consider.
Obviously, it’s not as simple as that, there are many other issues to take into account, such as access to earlier literature, access to technology, tradition, questions of identity, cost, and so on. Technology is not really a barrier in the case of Kazakh as modern computers can handle the Cyrillic script without problem. If Kazakh-speaking people want to change orthographies, great! if not, great! The decision lies with the people who use the language every day, and how they feel about themselves and their country. Although it does seem an expensive inconvenience if it is just an ostentation of self-determination.
Looking at the Latin-script pages of the Kazakhstan government website, I guess my only disappointment is the use of the umlauted-ï. I know it’s none of by business, but I think this is an unfortunate choice. Because of the thinness of the letter i, the two dots clash with neighbouring letters. Taking as examples some words from the above website:
nätïjesi ( ï and j clash)
tïisti ( ï and i clash)
Respwblïkas? ( l ï k clash)
If, instead, something else were used, like ÿ, it wouldn’t look as bad: nätÿjesi, tÿisti, Respwblÿkas?.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
on June 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I think it may be unreasonable to move away from Arabic in some cases. Arabic is a strong competitor to English in the world market, with millions of people understanding it. I spent some time learning arabic from some great teachers and found it beneficial inside and outside of Khaz.. Similar efforts as in Turkey have been successful, but possibly at a large price…
on July 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
What makes the Latin alphabet better than the Cyrillic? Absolutely Nothing! There are many sounds which cant be written with the Latin alphabet. Its a total waste of time and money.