Organized by the Kurdish Institute of Paris in partnership with
Salahadin University (Irbil) and with the support of the
Kurdistan Regional Government and of the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Kurdish Literature’s Moving Borders
Par Clémence SCALBERT (*)
The
paper I will present here is a part of my PhD thesis I passed in December 2005
on the following theme ‘Linguistic conflict and the Kurdish field of literature
in Turkey ’. The purpose of this research
was to understand the way the Kurdish literature and literary field were
developing in a context of conflict. I did fieldwork in Turkey but also in Sweden.
Then
I choose to focus more specifically on the Kurmanci language literature in Turkey. My
purpose today is to analyse one of the main debates taking place in the
today-state Kurdish literary field and which deals with the definition of the
Kurdish literature and of the limits of the field. Those debates are dependent
on those related to national identity as Kurdish language has been retained as
part of this identity. I use the field concept as defined by Pierre Bourdieu:
according to him, the field is a more or less autonomous social space with
proper rules, stakes and dynamics [1].
I’ll need to present first the context of emergence of this literature in Turkey .
Then, I’ll focus on the debates about language’s uses in Kurdish literature.
The main question is the following: is Kurdish literature written exclusively
in Kurdish or can other languages be used? We’ll see then that Kurdish
literature includes Turkish language writers and that its field does
participate to the Turkish one. I will finally consider the languages’ uses as part
of literary strategy.
1- The context of emergence of the Kurdish literature in Turkey
Since
1923, year of the foundation of the Turkish Republic, Kurds have not been
recognised in Turkey. All
Turkish citizens are considered as Turks. Languages other than Turkish were
forbidden and among them, mainly Kurdish. We can speak of a will of
assimilation through banning, depreciation and negation. However as the Kurdish
national movement developed Kurdish language was built as a cornerstone of the
Kurdish identity. Since the journal Hawar, the Kurdish language is
considered as the main mark of the Kurdish nation; above all because there is
no other strong distinctive marker. This does not mean however that Kurds in Turkey
all speak Kurdish.
Actually,
due to Turkish linguistic policies, Turkish, the official language, became the
main language of all Turkish citizens, through military service, schools,
Medias, and so on. Moreover as the Kurdish language was depreciated by the
dominant discourses, Kurds tend sometimes to make this point of view theirs and
devalued their own language. I described this situation as a ‘linguistic
conflict’. From the point of view of Catalans linguists, there is a linguistic
conflict when two well distinguished languages are confronting one
another ; one is politically dominant (it is the official language, the language
of the public sphere) and the other one is clearly dominated [2].
The notion of conflict is very interesting for us as it helps to study both
languages in interrelations. Then it seems difficult to study the Kurdish literature
in Turkey without taking into account
the dominant language. As Philippe Gardy and Robert Lafont wrote, ‘The
dominated language only exists in and through the relation of subordination
which binds it to the dominant language even though this last is absent’[3].
At
this point, it is then impossible for us to define the Kurdish literature as
the literature written in Kurdish as it is often done[4].
In the context of linguistic and national conflict in Turkey ,
we will see that, today, the borders of the Kurdish literature seem less easy
to draw.
Today,
in the Kurdish literary world, bilingualism and writing bilingualism is common.
As the Basque researcher Upaletegui writes, language used in literature is ‘most
often (if not always) for the writer the result of a decision and not the
spontaneous starting point of the creative act’[5].
The choice depends on different factors: the language knowledge of the writer,
the targeted readership, the literary community he wishes to be part of, and so
on. The hypothesis that I developed in my thesis was that writing in Kurdish
has developed partly in reaction to the conflict. This act of writing helps to
affirm the existence of a Kurdish nation. Then using of Kurdish language seems
evident. However, as I studied the process of emergence of the Kurdish writer,I observed that using Kurdish was a choice and required a real effort since
language of education and of writing was Turkish. This phenomenon can be
observed in the first steps of Kurdish literature (in the 60s till 80s) but
still today. Then the use of Turkish language may also be an alternative. But
in diaspora which plays an important role in the development of Kurmanci
language literature, writers may also choose to write in Swedish as well. Then
different languages can be used and different possibilities appear: Kurdish,
Turkish and European languages.
In this context, we will see how is today defined the Kurdish literature within
the Kurdish literature field’s debates. To study this, we took into
consideration the current literary debates about classics but also about
contemporary literature. The actors of the field mainly debate about the
language of this literature.
2 - Languages and Literary Borders The Kurmanji Classics today
Classics
are authors who make authority and are taught at schools. They are compiled in
anthologies, textbooks and in literary history. Classics can only be
acknowledged as such if time has passed. Indeed, only few writers will remain
through time. The recognition depends also upon the current context. Indeed the
authors considered today as classics give us information about today’s
perception of literature. As there is no public Kurdish institution in Turkey ,
classics are built trough literary magazines, anthologies, literary histories
or conferences which are our main sources.
The
Kurdish literary histories published in Turkey
are quite rare: there is Qanatê Kurdo’s (published by Özge) and Hüseyin
Sağnıç’s (published recently by Istanbul Kurdish Institute) [6]. The last is very thick and
goes back to ancestral times and to Avestic language, considered as the
ancestor of Kurdish. This history represents the oldness of Kurdish literature one
of its tasks being undeniably to illustrate the nation. Literary history
appears in the Kurdish world at the beginning of the 20th century: it
was at this time that the classics started to be established. The most
important one appeared to be Ahmedê Khani, considered as a ‘prophet’ by the
magazine Jîn in 1919 when the Kurdistan Teali Cemiyeti first
published Mem û Zîn. We can also think to Melayê Cizîrê and Feqiyê
Teyran. All of them wrote in Kurmanci. It is Hawar in 1941 which first proposed
a definition of the classics [7]:
Ahmedê Khani and Melayê Cizîrê are the most important and theirs works are
published in the journal. Today works of both are very often published in
literary magazines in Turkey .
Today we also found among the classics the writers belonging to the Hawar’s
generation like Djeladet Bedir Khan, Cigerxwîn but also younger ones as Musa Anter for example.
It
appears that all classics must have written in Kurdish. But it seems that non
literary considerations also play a role in the definition of classics. Those
authors were important from a literary point of view but also from non literary
ones – which are mainly political or linguistic: They often considered their
writing activities as a form of commitment. Ahmedê Khani is the first to link together
literary and political development; Djeladet Bedir Khan, which was first a political figure, created a standard
Kurdish language; Cigerxwîn is a socialist author whose poems reflect his
political commitment; Musa Anter did a lot to resurrect the language [8].
Then we can state that classics are monolingual and related to the language’s
political or identity aspects. Borders of this canon are then as much political
and linguistic as literary. It is necessary to underline that these are Kurmandji-speaking
writers and that the openness to other Kurdish languages is nonexistent today
in Turkey.
Contemporary literature
To
examine the definition of the contemporary literature, we’ll analyse debates
published in literary journals and different anthologies which have been
published recently in Turkey .
Those anthologies are Mehmet Uzun’s Antolojiya Edebiyata Kurdî, Muhsin
Kızılkaya’s Sürgün,g öç
ve Ölüm.Çağdaş Kürt Edebiyatındanseçme Hikayeler and Firat Cewerî’s Antolojiya
Çîrokên Kurdî [9].
Again, we’ll question the linguistic borders of this literature. The
anthologies clearly beg the question of the languages used. What is the
required language to enter the world of the Kurdish literature?
A literature of Kurdistan
First,
it is evident that the writers and literature of the different parts of Kurdistan
are included in the anthologies. Those anthologies then recognised a Kurdistan’s
literature crossing international borders but also linguistic or dialectal
borders: anthologies include, in translation, authors of Kurmandji, Sorani and
Zazaki languages, from Turkey, from Iraq
… Yet, Ahmadzadeh underlines a reality which doesn’t go along with those
representations of a Kurdistan ’s
literature. He wrote: « although there is a strong tendency among the
Kurdish nationalists to claim that there is a homogeneous Kurdish literature,
the reality of Kurdish literature is far from this » [10]. He concluded: « the
lack of organic relationship between literary activities in the different parts
of Kurdistan results in a discontinuous Kurdish literature. The question is whether one can
call this fragmented literature a ‘common literature’ » [11]. Indeed effective relationship
across the borders is absent: there are very few translations, an absence of
awareness and relationship between authors or editors from different parts of Kurdistan ,
and so on. But ‘mythical’ links are built and actors of this field try to give
shape to a ‘common literature’. To include all the different Kurdish languages
into anthologies is one of the tools to build this mythical unified field and
literature of Kurdistan. Anthologies
included translations from Sorani to Kurmandji and the Kurdish literature is
made monolingual again. The reader is then in front of a literature using a
common language. We can say with the Cypriot poet, Mehmet Yaşin, that
« literary anthologies, encyclopaedias, and collected works play a
particular role during the canonisation period of a modern language, as well as
a national community. A poetry anthology, as one of the main references for
nation-states’ self-imaginary, would not exhibit the whole range of the ‘real’
tongues of existing literature(s) and culture(s). Rather, it presents the
expectations of an imaginary national-identity that aims to be created. It tells
us only one tale in only one tongue and for only one nation » [12]. Of course, in the Kurdish
case, as the nation has long been negated and as language diversities may
reinforce the view that the nation is divided, the quest for unity, and
appearance of unity, is strong. For Gregory Jusdanis ‘The canon … not only
represents national identity but also participates in its production by
instilling in people the values of nationalism » [13] .
Here the canon, sometimes through the use of translation, unites the nation by
crossing international and linguistic borders. Firat Cewerî said that he had to
translate short stories from Sorani for his anthology of Kurdish short stories:
if he hadn’t done so, the readership wouldn’t have understood; moreover, he
affirms that his aim was to fight the division and the isolationism of the
Kurdish literatures in different parts of Kurdistan [14]
The inclusion of Turkish language writers
If we look at the titles of the anthologies, we see that they always include the
terms of Kurd or Kurdî (antolojiyahelbestvanên Kurd,
antolojiya edebiyata kurdî or antolojiya çîrokên kurdî). Then, it seems
that the Kurdish writer is defined as the one using Kurdish language. However by
reading the anthology, a contradiction appears. We find writers of Kurdish
origin, but using the Turkish languages, translated into Kurdish. We find for
example, in Firat Cewerî’s anthology, a short story of Susan Samancî. This
woman from Diyarbakir writes
in Turkish. In an interview, Firat Cewerî explains that he distinguishes two
kind of authors from Kurdish origins: those who write in Turkish, who don’t
know Kurdish and who don’t think to write, one day, in Kurdish; on the other
hand, those who are Kurdish, who know Kurdish, who write in Turkish but who
think and want to write in Kurdish in the near future. And Cewerî wants to help
these writers to use Kurdish. Suzan Samanci belongs to this last category [15] .
In
his anthology, Mehmet Uzun includes Selim Berakat, Yaşar Kemal, Yilmaz
Güney, Seyit Alp, Yilmaz Odabaşı and Esma Ocak. The first writes in
Arabic, the others in Turkish. So, it seems that the language used is not
enough to delimit the Kurdish literature. Mehmet Uzun writes: « In Turkey,
in Iran, in Iraq,in Syria, there are writers whose literature is built upon the Kurdish country, songs, culture,
people and ways of living. Life of Kurds, their relationships, their
experiences, their songs, epopees and proverbs are their source of information.
Their ways of telling are Kurdish. There are a lot of these writers » [16] . And Uzun does include these writers in his anthology.Â
Among
those writers, the most important one is certainly Yaşar Kemal. However, his
position is problematic and his integration in the field of Kurdish literature is
still debated. Actually, it is not easy to affirm that Kemal is a Kurdish writer
as he is a famous writer of Turkish language, world-wide known. Today he is one
of the most important writers of Turkey.
Moreover, if Yaşar Kemal recognizes his Kurdish origins, his belongings
are plural. His inspirations and sources are both Kurdish and Turkish, deriving
mainly from the Çukurova plain [17].
According to Altan Gökalp, the Russian novel was, from the point of view of
Kemal, a model for the Turkish novel to be invented: both Russian and Turkish
literature ‘start from an extra occidental horizon, with no novel tradition
but with a very wide field of oral literary traditions’ [18].
This Russian model is recommended by Kemal to the Kurdish authors [19].
Kurdish as well as Turkish oral tradition is source of inspiration for Kemal,
who started his literary carrier as a bard [20].
Along this line, Kemal is certainly a guide for the young Kurdish writers, a
model and a point to reach. And, if we look at the works of Mehmet Uzun, the
best-known Kurmanci writer, it is impossible not to think to Kemal. As Kemal
does, Uzun insists on the role and influence of the oral literature on his
writing process. His book, Dengbejlerim, deals with this issue. Moreover,
the hero of Uzun’s first novel is the bard Evdalê Zeynikê, a bard who was
himself very often the guest of Kemal’s family and whose character does appear
in Kemal’s novel Yer Demir, Gök Bakir, published in 1976. Kemal then can
be considered as a sort of model but plays also the role of a godfather as we
see in his preface to Mehmet Uzun’s novel: there he describes him as a master. However,
he seems to stand outside of the Kurdish literary field in its current
configuration. As a writer, he doesn’t play the game of the field and keeps
himself outside: he never writes in Kurdish journals or on Kurdish literature,
he has never been published by Kurdish publishing house and so on. The field
however does integrate the writer in its fights for definition. Of course, it
would have been much easier to integrate this author if he would have written
in Kurdish; for this reason, some writers do not accept his inclusion into the
Kurdish literature.
The
language question is then very important and is part of the current debates in
the field. Today, some authors of Kurdish origins and of Turkish language
openly consider themselves as Kurdish writers. This is for example the case of
Muharrem Erbey, young lawyer from Diyarbakır
whose shorts stories were published in 2005 by Bajar publishing house. Erbey
said: ‘I love very much Kurdish literature. I have more friends doing
Kurdish literature than Turkish literature. I triedtowrite in
Kurdish but I saw that I couldn’t manage well. I think it is not necessary to
force ourselves. All my stories reflect Kurdish literature. It is only from the
language point of view: I use Turkish. It is not a conscious choice. I consider
myself as part of the Kurdish literature’ [21].
We can here follow Rohat Alakom who underlined that it is the language but above
all the sentiment of belonging which draws the borders of the Kurdish
literature [22].
It is also necessary to add that the materiel conditions, the networks between
writers or editors, books and magazines distributions, do create more than all
other factors this common literature and a united field. If we look for example
at distributing network, we can see that the target is Turkish territory and
books don’t cross the boundaries. Relationship across the borders is absent.
Of
course, today this unitary definition is still dominant even in multilingual literary
system such as the Kurdish one. It seems that, at the end, Kurdish literature
could be open to language and identity diversity but, today, as literature must
illustrate the nation and the national identity, language diversity is not
considered as richness as suggested by Deleuze and Guattari [27]
but still as a problem. In this context Kurdish literature has to use Kurdish.
The point of view of the politic
Literary
consecration in a high politicized and militant context is also established by
political tendencies. All political tendencies have their proper literary canon.
We may take here a small example: the publishing house Aram
and his magazine Vesta. The magazine is published in both Kurdish and
Turkish and it is mainly a literary magazine. One point of the magazine is to
develop guerrilla literature whatever the language is.
For
Vesta, an important part of what is called ‘Kurdish literature’ is in
fact the literature of the dominant (Egemenlerin edebiyatı) or, in
other terms, the literature of the agha who uses the language of the people (halk
dili ile ağaların edebiyatı) [28].
Indeed this literature, dealing with the dominant class serves this class and
not the people. The guerrilla fight is supposed to have freed Kurdish
literature from the dominant class.
Vesta ’s own canons will have very specific profiles. The authors fought
in guerrilla and often wrote in Turkish as the martyr Gülnaz Karataş. For Vesta,
the language is less important than the theme of the works: the language is non
important if the work deals with Kurdish people, its fights, its wars in the
mountains. It is important to underlines that those canons are not recognized
outside this small sphere, that those authors are never included in the
anthologies and seem to be outside the Kurdish literature institution and are
never translated in Turkish They never cross the borders of this Kurdish field
as do few Kurdish authors whose use of Kurdish language may be a tool or a way to
accede to the Turkish literary field.
3 - Languages as literary strategies
Today
languages of Kurdish authors are plural. Some of them are translated and
published by Kurdish publishing house but also by Turkish ones which sometimes
also published in Kurdish, like Metis or Belge. As we saw, the choice of one or
another language does not necessarily determine the inclusion in Kurdish or
Turkish literature. But the language used can help the passage towards Turkish
field and can be considered as a literary strategy.
Indeed,
the writers who say today that they are part of Kurdish or Kurdistan
literature, can not, on a very practical point of view, be considered
independently of the Turkish literature world. This world indeed partly
organises the Kurdish literature world: publishing houses belong to the two
worlds, distributors are Turkish and works with all kind of publishing houses,
readership is as much Turkish as Kurdish, most bookshops are not specialised…
Passing from a field to another is then effective. Then the Kurdish literature
field, open, does look rather like a rhizome than like a field, more or less
closed and autonomous. Possibilities to pass from a field to another occurred
at a period where the Turkish literature opens up towards cultural and linguistic
diversity of the country. Passing is then allowed by the current state of the
Turkish literary field which is itself included in the political one. As Timour
Muhidine writes: « unthinkable still 10 years ago, the affirmation of the Turkish
State’s multicultural
components takes a decisive magnitude for artists» [29].
Present successes of Murathan Mungan (Kurdo-Arab), of Margosyan (Armenian of
Diyarbakir) or of Yılmaz Odabaşı (Kurd) do confirm this
affirmation [30].
Hasan Bülent Kahraman qualifies this literature of the literature of ‘the
other’; it developed from the end of the 1990s in Turkey
when the thesis of the Anatolian mosaic emerged.
Turkish
publishing house like Belge or Chiviyazıları specialised in this ‘other’
literature. Bigger publishing houses became also interested: Suzan Samanci’s
last book was published by Metis in 2004; at the same moment,
İletişim published Kızılkaya’s Kurdish short-stories’
anthologies. Since 2000, Mehmet Uzun, translated in Turkish, is published by
Gendaş and then by İthaki (since 2005). Since 2003, Evrensel also
started to publish Kurdish authors through its collection on Kurdish history
and culture (Kürt Tarihi ve Kültürü Dizisi) and the magazine Tîroj.
This
context or ‘exteriors factors’ of the field [31] enables some Kurdish authors to be recognized in the Turkish field.
It could be easier if they write in Turkish as translation is not required.
Someone who describes himself as a ‘Kurdish author’ may have more chance to be
recognized than if he had presented himself as a mere ‘author’. This property can
be a valuable resource in the current Turkish field. But belonging is plural
and acknowledgement in the Turkish field often demands that the writer had
first been acknowledged in the Kurdish one. We can take two examples to
illustrate this: Suzan Samanci who writes in Turkish and Mehmet Uzun who writes
in Kurdish.
Using
Turkish language, Suzan Samanci says that she belongs to the Kurdish field and
is actually recognized as part of the field. She has been published by Kurdish
publishing house like Avesta or Aram. This
acknowledgement in the Kurdish field certainly helped her to be published then
as a Kurdish author by Turkish publishing houses like Iletişim or Metis. As
women are rare in the field, gender can also be a resource (she is presented as
one of the few ‘women Kurdish author’). Someone who is recognised in the
Kurdish field has chance to be published in Turkish and to integrate the
Turkish field of literature opened to the others’ literature. This field could
even be qualified of ‘Literature field of Turkey ’,
definition which would include more easily the diversity.
A
Kurdish writer then enters the Turkish field if he writes in Turkish. What
about the one who writes in Kurdish? Let’s first say that only few of them have
been translated in Turkish. But, in general, translation, unlike auto
translation, does not mean the author is integrated into the national field: usually,
translation only enables readers to become familiar with foreign literature.
However, in our case, as Kurds are Turkish citizens and part of Turkey ,
it could be different. Here we analyse the case of Mehmet Uzun.
His
first book is published in 1984 in
Sweden. In 1991 he is published in Turkey
for the first time by Doz. Then, since 1995, all his works are published in
Turkey by the Kurdish publishing house Avesta and a few translations are
published by Belge, a small but famous publishing house because it is specialised
in this ‘literature of the other’. It is only since 2000 that the complete
works of Uzun are published in translation by Gendaş, a commercial
publishing house and also a distributor. But Uzun does not only write and
publish novels. He wrote quite a lot of essays about Kurdish literature, in
Kurdish and also in Turkish. His first essay, Nar Çiçekleri, about
multiculturalism, is first published in Turkey
in 1995 [32].
In 1995, his anthology is also published by Tümzamanları in Kurdish. In 1999,
a study about Kurdish literature is translated and published
by Gendaş. Since that time, Uzun seems to be recognised as the Kurdish
novel writer and as the specialist of Kurdish literature in Turkey .
The use of both Kurdish (for his novels) and Turkish (for his essays on
literature) help him to be considered in both fields. With Ur Apaletegui we can
say that, « as a bilingual writer, he plays on two territories», or
in the two fields [33].
But the two languages have specific functions: Kurdish is used for novels; Turkish
is used for essays and criticism. Still it is necessary to underline that the
Kurdish readership is very little and that the author have more chance to be
read and known in Turkish.Â
By
the end of the 1990s his books are published in both languages, sold and read,
mainly in Turkish. Today, Mehmet Uzun is considered to be the first Kurdish
novelist of Turkey and is
congratulated by Yaşar Kemal himself. He is a very popular figure of
contemporary Turkey.
Indeed, for the Turkish newsletter Hürriyet, he his one of the main
figures of 2005’s Turkey: He is
a « plurilingual author, in Kurdish, Turkish, Swedish, pluricultural
and had won a lot of prices»[34].
As we see, that is his plurilingualism, his multiculturalism which are
remembered.Â
He
is established in the Kurdish field because he uses Kurdish, because he innovated
by introducing the novel in Kurmanci contemporary literature. It seems that the
use of Kurdish language is an important capital for the writer: the Kurdish field
is still young; it is all the more easier to get a good place. He will then be
translated into Turkish as the first representative of the Kurdish literature
of Turkey. If the writer had tried to
create a Kurdish novel in Turkish language, acknowledgment would have certainly
been much more difficult in a competition with writers like Kemal using
Turkish.
4 - Concluding remarks: the literary territories and borders
It
seems that the Kurdish literary field is integrated today in the Turkish one.Â
Timour Muhidine recognised this fact when he writes that Kurmanci ‘can be
considered as the second language ofTurkey ’s
literature ’[35].
This field is bilingual.
If
literature is an autonomous social milieu, then the Kurdish literature is open
towards the space of Turkey ’s
book production and diffusion, publishing house, printing house, distributors,
readership, bookshops. If we look at distributing network, the target is
Turkish territory; this strongly contradicts the myth of a common Kurdish
literature. This helps Kurdish author to integrate the Turkish field of
literature in which they may found a better readership and a bigger success. But
it is only a part of the Kurdish Literature Field which is integrated into the Turkish
one:Â as an institution, a historical produced value, established and taught,
Kurdish literature is a literature written in (different) Kurdish (languages)
by authors leaving in all parts of Kurdistan: that is what show the anthologies
and textbooks. That is a literature of Kurdistan ,
in Kurdish.
Today,
in Turkey, the development of a united
Kurdish literature of Kurdish language is encouraged by the Kurdish
intellectual community:Â this literature would be the proof of the existence of
a Kurdish nation with a high culture (as all ‘real nations’); then language
becomes a refuge, as the unique foundation of the specificity [36].
In this context we understand more the need of a Kurdish-writing Yaşar
Kemal. That day, when a Kurdish language writer will be recognised all around
the world, it will maybe not be necessary to include the Turkish-writing
Yaşar Kemal in the Kurdish literary field. And the definition of Kurdish
literature may evolve then. Another point: when Kurdish language will be
recognised in Turkey and the fear of disappearance will fade away, then the
ability to choose the language used and to slip from one to the other may increase
and Turkish may be more freely used in Kurdish literature[37].
Today, all these roads are still open and the definition of literature is still
very dependant on the political, nationalist and sociolinguistic context.
Today,
I have the chance to be here in Iraq where
I am sure the literary situation is different. It can give me a chance to open
a comparative work and discussions but also to observe the linguistic and
territorial configurations of the Iraqi field and to maybe one day, link all
those pieces together.
[6] Q. KURDO, Tarixa e debiyata kurdî, Ankara: Özge, 1992 [1983-5]; H. SAĞNIÇ, Dîroka
Wejeya Kurdî, Istanbul : Institut Kurde d’Istanbul, 2003.
[7] « Klasîkên me an Şahir û Edîbên me ên Kevin », Hawar,
n° 33, 1er octobre 1941 (Stockholm: Weşanên Nûdem, 1998, p.
811).
[8] According to Firat Cewerî, Ahmedê Khani and Djeladet Bedir Khan are the most important personalities
of Kurdistan’s history. F.
CEWERÎ, « Ziman Bingeh û Çavkaniya Edebiyatê ye », Vesta, n°
3-4, 2004, p. 140.
[9] M. UZUN, Destpêka
Edebiyata Kurdî, Ankara: Beybûn
Yayınları, 1992; M. KIZILKAYA, Sürgün,göç ve Ölüm.Çağdaş Kürt Edebiyatından seçme Hikayeler,Istanbul:
İletişim Yayınları, 2004; F. CEWERÃŽ, Kultur, Hûner û
Edebiyat, Stockholm:
Weşanên Nûdem, 1996.
[10]
AHMADZADEH, Hashem, Nation and Novel. A Study of Persian
and Kurdish Narrative Discourse, Uppsala : Acta Universitalis Upsaliensis, Studia Iranica Upsaliensi n° 6,
2003, p. 128.
[12] M. YASHIN, « Introducing Step-mothertongue », in M. YASHIN
(dir.), Step-mothertongue. From Nationalism to Multiculturalism. Literature
of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, London : Middlesex University Press, 2000, p. 15-16.
[13] JUSDANIS (Gregory), Belated Modernity and Aesthetic Culture:
Inventing National Literature, Minneapolis, Oxford : University of Minnesota Press, 1991, p. 49.
[22] Answer to F. CewerÎ dans « Edebiyata
Kurdî », in CEWERÎ (Firat), Kultur, Hûner û Edebiyat, Stockholm :
Weşanên Nûdem, 1996, p. 140.
[23] M. YASHIN, « Introducing Step-Mothertongue », in M. YASHIN
(dir.), Step-mothertongue. From Nationalism to Multiculturalism. Literature
of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, London: Middlesex University Press, 2000, p. 15.
[30] H. B. KAHRAMAN, « 'Je suis un autre' :
Turkish Literature in Transition between National and Global Self », in M.
YASHIN (dir.), Step-mothertongue. From Nationalism to Multiculturalism :
Literatures of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, London : Middlesex University Press, 2000, p. 34-48.
