| YUKSEL.ORG
|
I Miss My Mother TongueEdip YukselAfter reading several articles on the linguistic, social and political aspects of bilingualism, certain memories of my childhood revived with much more meaning. Those articles, virtually did not contain much new information. They were common sense for me, since I had experienced most of the cases. However, I did not have a clear and systematic interpretation of my experiences. Now I know the reason my father suddenly forbid us from speaking Kurdish after we moved to the city. Now I realize how oppressive was the government. Now I appreciate the importance of bilingual education. I was raised in a bilingual family. I spoke Kurdish until I was eight years old. At age nine, when we moved from a small eastern town to Istanbul, the biggest city in western Turkey, I was suddenly obliged to talk Turkish. Turkish was the only national language with high prestige. Indeed, it was the only prestigious language of my country. Kurdish, the language of approximately ten million minority, had much negative connotation. Speaking Kurdish was a declaration of ignorance and inferiority. Though at that age I was not fully aware of this racist attitude, yet, I was influenced. My father did not have enough ammunition to fight against that pressure. He could not protect our original self-esteem. He submitted fully, even in the privacy of his home. Fighting back, probably would be useless. City with its mighty social, political and economical institutions was a ruthless mold reshaping every irregular individual thrown in. In order to resist that terrible molding machine you needed to be economically independent and heroically resistant. Unfortunately, my father was neither. We were molded. The communication language of our family changed dramatically. My father declared martial law against his own mother language, which he had spoken until his late forties. My mother did not know a single Turkish word when we were banned from speaking our mother language. It was not that difficult for my father. He had learned Turkish as his fourth language, while doing his military service. He had studied Arabic and Persian from religious schools. Being one of the top experts in Arabic language, he was invited to teach Arabic in the university. While he was trying very hard to polish his Turkish, we were struggling to communicate with our mother; sometimes sneaking in Kurdish. At retrospect, I see that our family was victimized by the ruling majority. As a result, I traded my Kurdish with Turkish. My father ended up with teaching Arabic in Turkish with a heavy Kurdish accent. My poor mother started talking a new language, Kuturkish, a mishmash of Kurdish and Turkish. Nobody could understand her, except us. Curiously, I started missing my mother tongue. I hope, I will be able to recover it in its pure form. Alas, I am not sure whether if my mother will be able understand it. Herstory or a Linguistic Somersault!Edip YukselCopernic, Pascal, Faraday, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Mendeleev, Einstein. What do these names have in common? All are the twinkling stars of the history of science. And all are men. Browse the names of all the scientists listed in an Encyclopedia, and see how many of them are woman. Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Lock, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Marx. All these philosophers and many more are male. Attila, Gengiz Khan, Sultan Mehmet, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, George Washington, Gandhi are all male leaders. Abraham, David, Solomon, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and all other prophets are male. Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Bach are also men. Homer, Shakespeare, Khayyam, Hafiz, Moliere, Hugo, Twain belong the same gender. Michelangelo, De Vinci, Raphael, Van Gough, Picasso are also male. There is not a single women among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. All the 42 presidents and vice presidents of USA are men. Almost all of the people quoted by the Familiar Quotations of Webster's Encyclopedia of Dictionaries are male. Sure, there are few women scattered here and there. But, obviously, human history is his story, not herstory. And our language fairly reflects this unfair human adventure. It is statistically natural for a dictionary to refer the scientist with "he". It is superficial to use "she" for a prototype scientist. Replacing male pronouns with female ones does not change the course of male dominant human society. I remember that some smart intellectuals
of under-developed countries once complained about the world map. Why western
countries were shown on the top? Why North was up, South was down? The
maps should be re-printed up side down with a revolutionary somersault!
They thought that this change on the maps would change the fate of underdeveloped
countries. Ultra-feminists who are trying similar operations on the language
are no different than those intellectual Don Quixotes. However, they are
the shamans of a rapidly changing world. They may get credit for women's
increasing direct participation in the making of history.
Language WorshipEdip Yuksel"If we made it a non-Arabic Quran they would have said, 'Why did it come down in that language?' Whether it is Arabic or non-Arabic, say 'For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, they will be deaf and blind to it, as if they are being addressed from faraway.'" (The Quran, 41:44).Pontificating that Arabic is the noblest and richest of all languages is baseless, both linguistically and empirically. No one can suggest objective criteria which can produce a list of nobleness for languages. How can a language be nobler than the other? Richness is also a relative, vague, and temporal concept. It is relative, because each language has rich lexicon in different areas. It is vague, because there is a complex net of trade among languages; they continuously borrow words from each other, and we cannot trace back the original source of each word. And it is temporal, because each language has good times and bed times. Yesterday's "poor" language can be today's rich, or vice versa. While Arabic provides "five hundred" words for camels--which I believe it is a typical exaggeration of fanatics-- it is mute for modern technology and sciences. Furthermore, how can we compare different areas with each other? Please don't tell me that camels are nobler than computers! Besides, the bizarre claim of Muslim scholars regarding the superiority of Arabic to all languages is entirely anti-Quranic. The first of the two verses quoted above reminds us that the language of the Quran is not relevant for believers. It can be translated to any language and still will function as a guide and healing. The second verse praises the variations in our languages, and considers this diversity as one of the signs or lessons (ayaat) for the knowledgeable. Unfortunately, Muslim scholars have traded the Quran with tradition (hadith) which are falsely attributed to the prophet Muhammad. The source of Arabic-worship is those fabrications. The same God that revealed the Quran in
Arabic, also revealed many other books in many other languages. For instance
the whole Bible (The Old Testament and the New Testament together) was
revealed in Hebrew, not in Arabic. God employed Hebrew language as a medium
of communication more frequently than Arabic. It is interesting that the
Quran praises The Old Testament and the Gospel as much as the Quran. Similar
adjectives are used both for the Quran and the Bible. See the Quran: 5:44-46;
9:111; 57:117.
Helpas, helpis, helpos, helpus!Edip YukselIt was a dream of many philosophers and scientists to have a universal language. It could shatter the numerous barriers of communication among nations just by a single punch. Leibniz and Descartes thought that construction of a language on logic and mathematics was possible. Thus, many attempts were made to fulfill that dream in 18th and 19th century. Many language entrepreneurs found that constructing artificial languages by using common elements of living languages was more economical. They blended and melted several languages, then molded them in a non-national, regular and simple pots, hoping for universal peace and unity. It would be an affordable and an attractive product. However it did not work that way. In the end, instead of one universal language there were about 100 candidates floating around. Therefore, the most important reason for a universal language turned to the opposite. Besides, they were genetically artificial and inadequate. Volapuek and Esperanto are the famous and relatively more popular ones. Esperanto, now is a language of a minority. About 15 million people can speak that language. Obviously, if any language to be labeled as a universal language today, it should be English. It has international popularity, rich and modern lexicon, rich experience and high prestige. We can list several reasons to explain why artificial or universal languages failed and will fail: 1. If economically and politically dominant nations do not commit themselves to the need for an artificial language, it won't happen. The zeal of enthusiastic individuals can only increase the inflation of languages. Instead of uniting, they will be dividing. Obviously, this is a self-denying prophecy. 2. Today's living languages are the products of very complex evolutions. The mutations and experiences have provided them with many qualities that a new-born language cannot have them. The similarity and dissimilarity of natural and artificial languages can be explained by two kinds of wine: Natural languages are like aged wine made from grapes, artificial languages are like yesterday's wine made from concentrate. Our tongues can taste the difference, tough cannot explain it. 3. The simple structure and limited vocabulary of artificial languages cannot suffice to convey many technical or literary concepts. (I bet, they can never endure poetry). 4. Artificial languages are very pregnant (!) with new dialects and sub-languages. Assuming that an artificial language has got international popularity and recognition, soon, it will be the mother of many dialects, and grand-languages. This fate will nullify its reason of existence. 5. In Esperanto, for instance, tenses are determined by verb endings. Helps is helpas, helped is helpis, will help is helpos, and would help is helpus. Helpas, helpis, helpos, helpus! This very close sound system, in fact, does not make the language simpler. I believe, to the contrary, it makes more difficult for the audience to distinguish the tenses of the verb during hasty daily conversation. 6. In the next century you will not "need"
to know a second language. Computer translators will translate our words
to any language with a better voice and grammar, and even without accent.
Ironically, the universal unity that could not be achieved by artificial
languages will become possible by artificial machines! Alas, Esperanto
did not helpas!
Can Phonographs Swim in Mississippi?Edip Yuksel"The meeting which was held to bring solutions for a galaxy of ticklish problems ended with a symphonious brain fart."The above statement is an example of creating a new "word order". Human creativity does not stop in creating new orders. We create new words too. Sometimes for need, sometimes for fun. We need new words; our inventions, scientific discoveries and our ever complicating world require them. We have fun with "personalized words"; our intellectual ego, our fame-seeking nature starve for them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the adventure of creation of new words is similar to dreams. Many of produced brand-new words die in short memories; but some stick in public hard disk. Sure, after loosing their creator's signature. Different units of language are generally created by different classes: Laymen create chapters.
Finally, people, as the ultimate processor and producer of language, juggle or jumble them, twist or season them, blend or grind them, polish or abolish them, brew or chew them, throw or swallow them. Language is an evolving, flowing river. Day by day it deepens, widens and creates new branches. Each generation adds some color and spices into it. This river, however, according to linguistics cannot be polluted. Every branch flows with healthy water. There are many motivations and social, political, economical, euphemistic and "mysterious" reasons behind each change. Here are some examples of changes in word level: Jails are now detention centers. Iceboxes became refrigerators, and now they are food-storage systems. Victrola became phonograph, then a stereo, and now a home entertainment center. Policemen are police officers. Negroes became black and now they are African-Americans. Abortionists are pro-choice activists. Lay offs are restructuring. Dictionaries, soon may add another article for the meaning of "gate": n) scandal. Future generations may not recall Watergate scandal as the source of Irangate, Tailgate etc. Language, like everything, changes in a semi-predictable evolutionary path while perpetually rolling on millions of tongues. Conservative language fans hate this change. They want to stop the flow of Mississippi with their narrow palms. From ancestor-worship to mere change-phobia there are variety of reasons for their chronic denial and useless resistance. Let's create phrases and words, then throw
them to our Mississippi. If they can swim they will survive. Here is one
suggestion: Instead of "conservative language fans" let's use "frozen antique
phonographs". I believe they can swim. They all are from wood!
Man Cries, While Woman Cries!Edip YukselLanguage is not magic; it cannot create worlds out of words. Language is not revelation; it cannot provide knowledge independent from experiences. Our language is our mental reaction, reflection, description, confirmation, rejection or interpretation of our daily life. Our language, with its all related features--its style, its tone, dialect, topic, length etc., is shaped by our experience and brain. Thus, given their particular environment, it is not difficult to predict what and how men and women will talk. Regardless of our gender, we talk most about ourselves. The most frequently used word is "I". I think this is a universal fact. (You see, just I used one of them). A woman talks about herself, a man talks about himself. The interests or responsibilities of "I" determines topics and subjects. If women talk about other women it is still closely related to "I". Admiration or jealousy or some other personal feelings are the reasons behind that topic. As long as men and women have different social roles and social expectations the expression of their feelings will be articulated on different topics. The difference will vary according to their roles. However, the same social roles and expectations may not diminish the difference in their style and tone. What I mean with style and tone? I mean the delivery of pizza! Man may show off his speed and muscles while delivering three-toping-pizza, on the other hand, woman may show off her kindness and beauty while doing the same job. Can this stylistic differences also be the consequence of some deep-rooted different expectations? Or, those expectations are deep-rooted in biological differences? Well, let me toss a theory: man uses more
transitive verbs than woman. Man "does" while woman "feels". Man cries,
while woman cries! But, ultimately, they do the same. Man expresses his
feelings in his "deeds", while woman expresses her "deeds" in her feelings.
Religion as the Medium of Language PropagationEdip YukselThere are several prime factors that determine the evangelical nature and the degree of contagiousness of a language. Any language that possesses them the most, becomes an epidemic on the lands. These are: ••• The number of countries that speak a languageIn this short article I will try to focus on the role of religion in language spread with my little fuzzy lens. (I hope it will get polished towards the end of the semester). After the era of the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great (r. 324-337), Christianity was sanctioned as the state religion by Theodosius the Great and spread among the educated classes of Roman empire. On the other hand, after the conquest of Persia by Arab-Muslims, Turks encountered Islam. Since Arabs liked to exploit their military talents, they facilitated Turkic raids to Near and Middle East. This cooperation, and some other factors helped Turks to convert to Islam. Greek, the popular language of Roman empire, was not influenced by Hebrew, the original language of Jesus, even after the official acceptance of Christianity. However, Turkish, (Persian, Malaysian, Indonesian and many other Near Eastern and Far Eastern languages too), were invaded by Arabic, the language of the Quran. What can be the reason for this two different phenomena? Why Arabic took over the language of Ottoman empire, but Hebrew, on the other hand, could not even greet the Roman empire? Thus, we have to find the differences between these to cases. A quick study will reveal the following differences. But, it needs a deeper study to determine the real factors. Arabic was the language of a new-born independent, victorious, proud and nationalistic nation. Hebrew was the language of oppressed, colonized, third class Jews. Quran was preserved in its original language,
that is Arabic. The Hebrew teachings of Jesus was oral. Decades later,
the Gospels and Letters were mostly written in Greek, the prestigious
language of that time.
Top Ten Reasons Why Select English as the Official Language Edip Yuksel The pressing need for making a common U.S. language official will certainly be one of the 21st century’s most controversial issues. For proactive reasons, I believe the U.S. needs to go through the motions of selecting an official language soon, before this becomes an even more divisive domestic factor. Theoretically, any language can serve as the official language; but in our case, selecting the language of the majority is both economical and practical. As crazy as it makes me, English, to date chronologically my fifth language, should be recognized nationally as the official lingua franca. Here’s my top ten reasons why: 10. Common language is common sense.
HOW ARE YOU?Function Of Routine Gambits In Our Daily ConversationEdip Yuksel*******
The routine formula "How are you?" as one of the most popular gambits play an important role in our daily conversation. This paper attempts to determine some function and characteristic of routine formulas, and particularly suggests some function of the ritual inquiry "How are you?" The strong relation between routine formulas and culture is discussed and the benefits of routine formulas in interpersonal communication is pointed out. At the end of the paper a new thesis on the subject presented. ******* "Working in a department store, I wanted
a change from using the tired greeting to customers, 'Hello, may I help
you?' So, when the next person came in, I said, 'Hi, How are you today?'
'No thanks,' she replied automatically. 'I'm just looking.'"
In the middle of a chess game, the number of probable combinations is so huge, it puts the players in deep thoughts. Conversely, the beginning is simple, virtually routine. There are several gambits in the whole chess history. Those gambits besides initiating the game, also implicate the future move or strategy of the player. Closing the game is also a routine; it is either a check-mate or a draw. Similarly, our daily conversation has gambits, and routines. We start our conversation with routines, and we close with routines. The form of routines depends on the type of conversation (telephone, face to face etc.) We are so conditioned with routines, sometimes our expectations of a particular routine lead us to interpret them according to the context. Hence, we perceive them in different routine formats. The experience of Lisa Mc Nelson (quoted above) is a good example for the effect of routines in our daily conversation. To examine the role of routines in interpersonal communication, "Sorhus (1977) studied a corpus of over 130,000 words of spontaneous Canadian speech; and she came to the startling result that in daily conversational exchanges an average of a fixed expression every five words is a normal rate. In other words, her count has yielded a frequency as high as 20 percent of the words lettered." (Coulmas, 1981). Meaningless, but functional hackneyed rituals Phone conversation is a unique case for routines. Almost every conversation on the phone starts with slightly different versions of the following gambits. As a basic rule, the conversational sequence is started by the answerer (Schegloff, 1968). A - Hello!Two party conversations have an alternating sequence. "Conversational sequence can be described by the formula ababab, where 'a' and 'b' are the parties to the conversation: one party at a time." (Schegloff, 1968). Parties initiate their conversation by exchanging gambits. In normal phone conversation starting with gambit exchange is universal. However, there are exceptions: "Whatever is special, problematic, urgent, or specifically strategic may be marked by divergence from routine formats" (Hopper, 1989). Such as in case of emergency or terrible news routine gambits are not used. Cross-cultural studies of telephone openings shows some variance in the sequence of gambits. For instance, phone answerers in Holland or Germany mostly begin with self-identification instead of "hello". In Turkey and Iran callers start with "Alo", continuing with self-identification and "how are you?" It is interesting that "Alo", the distorted form of "Hello", is not a greeting. It is entirely a meaningless word. It is considered just a conventional voice to check whether the call went through or not. Why Do We Start Our Conversation With Gambits? Why do we ask the ritual inquiry "How are you?" What do we really mean by this format? To answer these questions, let us look at the characteristic of gambits, or more generally, routines. Routines are fixed formulas and a slight change in their structure can confuse the other party. For instance, "In routine greetings morning is good, birthday is happy and Christmas is merry." (Ferguson, 1976). Happy morning, merry birthday or good Christmas, most likely create problems in communication. Any personal inference to the structure of routines is subject to a significant reaction. Coulmas (1981), in editorial preface for the "Conversational Routine" points out the idiomatic aspect routine formulas: "Phrases such as, Good to see you! How are you? Take care! Nice to meet you. See you. etc. are often perceived as hackneyed expressions having lost their expressiveness. They don't lack meaning in strict sense altogether. Frequency of occurrence and meaningfulness are inversely related; thus, as they are used more they mean less and less. . . . Erosion of its literal meaning is one way in which an expression can turn into an idiom." Every Repeated Word or Expression is Not a Routine Formula Though I agree with Coulmas on the inverse relation between frequency and meaningfulness, I don't think it is a universal rule. The inverse relation between the frequency of occurrence and meaningfulness may not be valid all the time. For example, the words "addition, square root etc." in a math class will not lose their meaning as they are used frequently. The word "shit" will always carry its full meaning in a range; but it will not smell in daily conversation. Similarly the question "How are you?" does not have the idiomatic meaning when it is asked to a patient in the hospital. In this case it is not a routine formula; it represents the literal meaning of its words. Therefore, a "routine formula" is not a routine formula every time and everywhere. The circumstances, intention, and perception of parties determine whether a formula is a routine or literal. After this clarification we can agree with Sacks (1975). In his article, "Everyone has to lie", he analyses the initial inquiry "How are you?" and its known alternative answer. Hopper (1981), paraphrasing the main point of that article gives us an interesting fact about one of the most popular conversational question. "An initial inquiry of 'How are you"? is only loosely connected to any literal meanings. Askers of 'How are you'? need not be heard as seeking information about the health or welfare of the recipient. Recipients are obliged to answer, but not to tell how they actually feel." Since gambits are not the main message intended to be given in interpersonal communication, then why is their usage so common, even universal? What happens if we remove these extra words, for example, the "How are you?" from our daily conversation? Starter, Signal, Gear and Oil of Our Daily Communication Regarding the function of gambits, Coulmas (1981) asserts that, gambits help a person to participate in social interaction by organizing and assembling the conversation in a socially meaningful manner. Mary E. Wildner-Bassett quotes from Keller and Taba-Warner the following definition of gambits: "Gambits can be seen as a set of signals in language that show what kind of thing the speaker is going to say next, or to signal the social relationship between the people who are speaking. We can think of them as a language framework that supports the content of our conversations, or as the 'oil' in conversations that keeps them running smoothly and without technical difficulties" (Wildner-Bassett, 1984). If a person does not cooperate with gambits, he/she will be entitled to be odd or abnormal in public mind. Words are sacred. Society does not tend to tolerate or understand personal distortions and alterations in words. So the same for gambits. They are sacred ritual formulas. They are tradition, sometimes even religion. You feel good when you use them, and you feel obligated to answer them with the expected pair formulas. The important function of gambits as sociocultural supervisors and regulators is stated by Tannen and Oztek (1979): "Formulaic expressions perform a social function and thus are part of the social institutions of the cultures in which they function. They both reflect and reinforce the institutions and attitudes of these cultures." While gambits reflect and reinforce the institutions of cultures, they also provide some aid for communication: "Cultures that have set formulas afford their members the tranquility of knowing that what they say will be interpreted by the addressee in the same way that it is intended, and that, after all, is the ultimate purpose of communication." (Tannen and Oztek, 1979). Culture and Gambits It is ironic that according to cultures, the initial inquiry formula "How are you?", should be understood NOT as "How are you?". Cultures, in this way, demonstrate their dominance on logic and language. So, we display and witness the color and taste of cultures in our daily conversation. The relation between routine formulas and culture depends on the structure and strength of the culture. "The more tradition-oriented a society is, the more its members seem to make use of situational formulas." (Coulmas, 1981). In other words, the more we use the initial inquiry "How are you?" the more we emphasize our harmony with the status quo. Cultural Noise in Human Communication Using gambits as a cultural ingredient rather than sincere personal concern can be perceived as atmospherics, or cultural noise in human communication. Sensitive people who take individual relations serious, can be offended by these overused meaningless words. Iranian people, for instance, as a highly tradition-oriented society, confirms Coulmas' assertion. They use situational formulas more frequently than many other societies. They repeat more, they inflate more, and they make even louder noise. In Iranian Hoosh Aamedi (welcoming) and Huda Hafizi (bye-bye) some people just try to make loud noise, especially in "How are you" session. This long lasting and noisy exchange of routine formulas are the consequence of the cultural salience of Iranian society. However, I think that in the overuse of routine formulas there may be the role of a fourteen century-old religious practice: Taqiyya. The practice of taqiyya (concealing one's real faith in public) by many generations requires much more time for parties to assure each other for their sincerity and truthfulness. Farrokhzad, a modern Iranian poet, complains of this repeated meaningless words: By the way, routine formulas are not the only empty expressions. While insult their rivals, politicians never forget to address them with "Mister", or "Gentlemen." Thus, a harsh criticism of a politician is destined to be an oxymoron.Life may be . . . Regulators of Conversation Gambits, besides their social and cultural function, pave the way for further conversation and regulate the traffic of communication. Question-answer, request-grant pairs ignite and organize our conversation and provide a smooth flow of interaction. "These pragmatically related pairs of speech acts not only produce sequentially implicated turns, but also provide for structural expansion into broader patterns of turns organized with relevance to a dominant adjacency pair." (Jackson and Jakobs, 1980). Gambits As Time Providers and Fillers Another function of routine formulas is "to give the speaker time to find words for his idea and they also act as fillers. Undoubtedly, speakers often need time to arrange their thoughts and to prepare consecutive conversational moves." (Coulmas, 1981). Here, I intentionally referred to this observation as a "function" not a "reason", since in many cases, for instance, in our conversation with a traffic police officer we do not use "How are you?" But in that case we might need more time to arrange our thoughts than we need for a conversation with our classmate. Sometimes, functions can substitute the original reason and become the reason. Intimacy-Interval Factor in the Usage of Routines Nevertheless, the character and function of routines are more complicated. For instance, the frequency of our particular gambit "How are you?" varies according to the intimacy between parties and intervals between conversations. We do not usually use the initial routine "How are you?" in a conversation with strangers as well as with our close relatives. When we ask our spouse "How are you?" we mean it, and it is no longer a routine formula. The interval between conversations also has an effect on the usage of gambits. If we meet with a friend for the second time, let say, after ten minutes from the first meeting, we will generally not start with a "How are you?". By this observation I want to present another function of gambits: Gambits give the two parties time to remember each other and scan the previous relation between them. Thus, if they do not need time to remember each other, (for instance, in a conversation with a stranger or a roommate), most likely they will not use the routine formula "How are you?" This thesis needs to be studied. In Conclusion, Gambits are common communication tools that initiate, assemble and organize the conversation, display our harmony with the cultural institutions, give the two parties time to remember each other and time to arrange thoughts. This is why we do not get tired to ask each other the tired routine "How are you?" This is why we usually compelled to answer with a "fine" or a "pretty good" word, instead of realistic ones. So, how are you, my dear friend? Bibliography Coulmas, Florian. 1981 General Editor's Preface, Conversational Routine, Netherland, Moutan Publishers. Ferguson, Charles A. 1976 The structure and use of politeness formulas, Language in Society, Aug. 1976, 5:137. Hopper, Robert. 1981 Sequential ambiguity
in telephone openings 'what are you doin', Communication Monograms, Sep.
1981, 56:242
Jackson, Sally and Jacobs, Scott. 1980 Structure of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for the enthymem, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66:252. Sacks, Harvey. 1975 Everyone has to lie, Sociocultural Dimension of Language Use, Newyork: Academic Press, p. 57-79. Shegloff, Emanual A. 1968 Sequencing in conversational openings, American Antropologist, 70:1078. Tannen, Deborah and Oztek, Piyale C. 1979 Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek, Conversational Routine, Netherlands: Mouton Publishers, p. 44. Wildner-Bassett, Mary E.1984 Improving Pragmatic Aspects of Learners' Interlanguage, Germany, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen, p. 2. My darling. 1993 monologs, Tucson, pp. 98472803, unpublished;-) When I wrote the following article years ago, I did not have the Persian keyboard and thus I recorded the original verses in handwriting. I lost those papers and I am left with this English article. I do not have time to find those missing verses. If you are a fan of Hafiz and familiar with his poetry can you please send me an e-mail and inform me about those missing verses? What will you get in return? Let's leave it to negotiation;-)YUKSEL: Hi Hafiz. I hope you will tolerate my curiosity and novicehood. I have read only 7 of your Gazals. Though Persian is my fifth language, I tried to understand what you are trying to deliver. It seems that you have considered the digital language of daily life insufficient to express your thoughts and feelings. You are trying the analogic language, that is, poetry. However, sometimes you complain about your inability to express certain feelings or experiences even in symbols and metaphors. I hope you will answer my semi-silly questions without getting offended. My first Question is about you. What is your real name? When and where did you live? How did you make your living? Were you single or married? Did you have children? Etc. HAFIZ: My name is Shemsuddin Muhammad. I became known as Hafiz, because I memorized the whole Quran while I was a child. I lived in 8th century after Hijra in Shiraz, Iran. Making a living for a popular poet like me is not big deal. I have a simple and dignified life and respected by three Shahs. YUKSEL: What is your favorite color? Flower? Animal? City? HAFIZ: I like the color of wine. If you blabber I will remind you the lily of the valley "Susan ." I remember Cypress tree "Sarw " when I see my beloved one walking towards me. Rose is her face and Tulip "Laleh " is the couplet in her hand. Nightingale (Bulbul), Parrot (Tuti), and Gazalle (Ahu) are very lovely. I don't like predators. My favorite city is my birthplace Shiraz:
If you notice that I don't care about Bukhara
and Samarqand very much:
YUKSEL: You refer to some pairs of characters frequently: Layla and Majnun, Yusuf and Zulayha, Jam and his goblet, Arif and Zahid. Besides, you have many single characters, such as, Saqi, Mutrib, Yar, Ashiq, Piri Mugan, Hallaj, Masih, etc. Obviously, each one of them symbolizes certain position and attitude. Which one of them most closely symbolizes your real position? HAFIZ: All of them, or none of them. I call myself "Rind " which means clever, cunning, sly, slyboots, tippler, mischievous, libertine . . . YUKSEL: I counted some of the key words in your 7 Gazals and came to a conclusion: Your Gazals basically are built on three legs: Love, Wine, Beauty. Here is the detailed list of words:
HAFIZ: First of all, a single word
may have several meanings. For instance, the word "love" can have different
ingredients or connotations depending on its context.
I tried to address to the most devastating
plague of my time: Hypocrisy and fanatism. I fought against that evil by
singing the song of love and sincerity.
YUKSEL: How can you explain your advocation of intoxicating love and your concern about the form of poetry, such as, its rhythm, vocabulary, tone, rhyme etc? HAFIZ: Otherwise who would listen to me? A wonderful dam can be disastrous if it's water is not controlled and directed wisely. YUKSEL: Though you use the word God (Khuda) less frequent than wine and cup, many believe that your main theme is the love of God? How can you explain this misunderstanding? HAFIZ: Who said that I love God,
but don't love His creation? If you love God you will love all the beautiful
things He has created. Besides, I refer to God not only by the word "Khoda",
but by many names and adjectives. I believe that the source of love is
God.
YUKSEL: You wrote in Persian and lived in Persia. Your audience are mostly Shiite Muslims. And they hate "Yazid". Then, how come you start your Diwan with a verbatim quotation of Yazid's Arabic verse? HAFIZ: First of all, this Yazid is not that Yazid. Gazal is an Arabic form of poetry. Its measure, that is, Aruz is also Arabic. I wanted to start with a great Arabic verse to express my acknowledgement of this fact. Furthermore, by starting with a historic verse on wine and bartender, I make the Persian wine aged. Moreover, I show my talent by integrating two different language in one doublet. It is a declaration of the victory of Persian literature. YUKSEL: My instructor Dr. Simin Karimi claimed that you are the best poet in the world ever. Do you agree with her? HAFIZ: There were some other people also claimed the same things before her. I like it, and I hope they are right. YUKSEL: Some claim that you are a homosexual, since in many cases you hide the gender of your beloved one. HAFIZ: How many man of my time can fit in the description of my beloved one? You can come up with any speculation if you want. YUKSEL: You have ended the
Gazal "Nasim-e Sobh-e Saadat
" with the following doublet
In every previous doublets you repeat the phrase "to dani ." They appear to be referring to a second person. However, in this last line you switch it to yourself without changing the second person. What do you mean by this? Do you imply that from the beginning until the end you are also the second person? What is that universal language that you boast that "you know"? HAFIZ: If I know that you know something then I must know what is known. Besides, you (as my audience) and me are not different in the context of poems. If you don't know what is that language I can't tell you. It is a language that cannot be taught, but learned. YUKSEL: Though you seem very
certain and dedicated about your invitation to love and wine, sometimes
you give a contradictory message about your conviction. For instance just
after reprimanding Zahid for his intolerance towards those who drink to
the dregs, you end your Gazal "Zolf- ashofteh
" with the following doublet:
Do you frequently repent and then violate that? Do you feel guilty about what you are advocating? HAFIZ: No for the second part. YUKSEL: In the last doublet of the
Gazal "Mazra'-e sabz-e falak
" you express your care about the religion, yet you accuse the religious
figures of being responsible of destroying the religion:
YUKSEL: What is your point? HAFIZ: You got it already. |