Conclusion: On the Literary Common
The conclusion suggests that if the history of Turkish phonocentrism is in some sense a “mad” attempt to control communicability, Tanpınar’s, Safa’s, and Nâzım’s work recasts that history for the affirmation of the impropriety of the Turkish language. The social promise of the “strange institution called literature” is not the promise of a dazzling spectacle of cultural diversity exhibited on a world stage, or that of a fetishistically rigorous “research” serving the ends of imperial conquest. The promise of literature is rather the practice of an alternative, non-identarian relation with the vernacular, cognizant and affirmative of linguistic and social difference.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.