Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Uyghur New Script

The Uyghur New Script (Uyghur Yëngi Yëziqi or UYY), a Latin-based for the , was officially implemented in the from 1965 to 1982 as a phonetic system tailored to Uyghur . Drawing influences from the Soviet Uniform Turkic Alphabet for and the Chinese system for tonal and segmental representation, it incorporated diacritics such as , , and h̡ to capture Uyghur's , front/back distinctions, and consonants absent in standard Latin. This script emerged amid mid-20th-century reforms for minority languages in , reflecting state-driven efforts to standardize writing for , , and with Mandarin-influenced systems during a period of ideological alignment with phonetic scripts over traditional ones. Despite mandatory use in publishing, schooling, and official documents, the Uyghur New Script faced resistance due to its divergence from the longstanding tradition tied to 's Islamic cultural heritage, rendering it unpopular and ill-suited for native speakers accustomed to cursive Perso- forms. In 1982, following the Cultural Revolution's end, authorities abolished it via the Ethnic Language and Writing Committee, reinstating a reformed (with added vowel markers for full phonemic coverage) to foster continuity and cultural preservation, a shift formalized in orthographic standards by 1984. Today, remnants persist in schemes like BGN/PCGN for geographic naming, but the script holds primarily historical significance amid ongoing debates over Uyghur orthographic stability.

Historical Context and Development

Pre-1965 Uyghur Writing Systems

The Perso-Arabic script became the primary for following the widespread adoption of in the Tarim Basin region during the 10th century, replacing earlier scripts such as the Sogdian-derived used for Buddhist and Manichaean texts from the 8th to 13th centuries. This script was adapted to accommodate Turkic phonology by incorporating additional diacritics and letters for vowels and consonants absent in standard Arabic, such as modifications for sounds like /ö/, /ü/, and /ng/. Over centuries, it facilitated religious, literary, and administrative ation, with reforms in the early under figures like standardizing orthographic rules for consistency in vowel representation, though ambiguities persisted due to the script's nature. In the 1920s and 1930s, Soviet linguistic policies promoted Latinization campaigns across Central Asia as part of broader efforts to distance Turkic peoples from Arabic-influenced Islamic traditions and foster proletarian internationalism. For Uyghur communities in Soviet territories and during the short-lived East Turkestan Republic (1933–1934), a modified Latin alphabet—part of the Uniform Turkic Alphabet (Yañalif)—was introduced around 1930, featuring 32 letters tailored to Uyghur phonemes, including digraphs for affricates and fricatives. This system saw limited implementation in education and periodicals but was largely abandoned by the late 1930s amid Stalinist purges and a pivot to Cyrillic scripts, which were imposed on Soviet Uyghurs by 1940 to align with Russian orthographic dominance and facilitate surveillance of printed materials. Following the establishment of the in 1949, the remained in use for in , reflecting continuity with pre-communist conventions, though standardization efforts drew on Soviet models approved in in 1951. Soviet influence peaked in the mid-1950s, leading to the adoption of a Cyrillic-based for in around 1956–1957, comprising 32 letters with adaptations for Uyghur vowels and the palatal approximant /y/, aimed at improving phonetic accuracy and integration with socialist literacy drives. This shift supported expanded publication of textbooks and newspapers, though the ensuing from 1960 introduced tensions, with Cyrillic's implementation proving inconsistent due to ideological divergences and logistical challenges in retooling printing presses. Literacy campaigns under both and Cyrillic systems reduced overall illiteracy in Uyghur areas from high pre-1949 levels, though precise comparative rates tied to script changes remain sparsely documented in available records.

Creation and Influences (1962-1965)

The Uyghur New Script, also known as Yëngi Yëziqi, was developed in the early 1960s by linguists under the Uyghur Autonomous Region's Language and Script Committee as part of broader Chinese efforts to modernize minority orthographies following the adoption of Hanyu Pinyin for in 1958. This initiative aligned with socialist policies emphasizing simplified, phonetic writing systems to promote mass and , replacing the Perso-Arabic script associated with religious and feudal traditions. Work on the Latin-based system progressed amid post-1949 standardization drives, with trial implementations in primary schools occurring during the decade, culminating in the printing of 600,000 copies of a primer featuring the new in 1965. Linguistically, the script drew influences from the Hanyu Pinyin system, incorporating diacritics for precise vowel representation akin to Pinyin's tonal markers—adapted here for Uyghur's vowel harmony and phonetic needs rather than tones—and elements from the 1930s Yëziqi Latin orthography used for Uyghur in Soviet-influenced regions. The resulting 32-letter alphabet prioritized first-principles phonetic mapping to Uyghur's Turkic sounds, including unique characters such as ⱨ to denote the /h/ phoneme, avoiding ambiguities in standard Latin letters while facilitating romanization compatible with Chinese linguistic trends. This design supported bilingual education by easing transitions to Pinyin-based Mandarin materials, without accommodating Arabic script's cursive forms or ideological links to Islamic heritage. The committee-driven process involved empirical adaptation of Latin characters to capture Uyghur's eight vowels and 24 consonants, testing mappings for accuracy in representing dialectal variations, particularly the Ili variant promoted under Maoist standardization. Key oversight came from bodies like the Language Research Committee, with figures such as Seypidin Ezizi contributing to related language policy frameworks, though primary design credit remains collective under state directives. By , the script's core features were finalized, reflecting causal priorities of ideological alignment and practical utility over preservation of traditional scripts.

Official Adoption and Implementation (1965)

On October 1, 1965, the Uyghur Autonomous Region People's Government issued a presidential mandating the full adoption of the Uyghur New Script, a Latin-based system, as the official for the , following its earlier endorsement by the First Session of the Third People's Congress of the region in April 1964 and approval by the State Council on October 23, 1964. This policy-driven rollout aligned with Mao-era initiatives to standardize and phoneticize minority scripts, emphasizing transparency in representing Uyghur phonology to boost rates while ideologically severing ties to Perso-Arabic orthography, which authorities associated with religious and pan-Turkic . Implementation began immediately upon the decree, enforcing the script's mandatory use in schools, newspapers, official documents, broadcasting, and publications across the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, with party directives compelling compliance through administrative channels rather than . Educators and civil servants underwent rapid training programs, though initial logistical hurdles arose from the need to transliterate existing materials and produce new ones, exacerbating disruptions in administrative continuity and educational delivery amid the pre- . Early enforcement encountered resistance from intellectuals and educators familiar with the established , as documented in subsequent analyses of public sentiment, yet state mechanisms prioritized ideological conformity over cultural preferences, resulting in coerced adoption without mechanisms for widespread referenda or opt-outs. This top-down approach reflected causal priorities of the era—favoring scripts modeled on for alignment with Han-centric modernization—over preserving orthographic traditions that had endured for centuries among Turkic communities.

Script Characteristics

Alphabet Composition and Letters

The Uyghur New Script alphabet comprised 32 letters adapted from the to align with the phonemic inventory of , a Karluk Turkic featuring 8 distinct vowels and 24 as identified in phonological studies. It utilized the core letters A–Z as a base, supplemented by non-standard characters including ƣ for the /ɣ/ and ⱡ to distinguish a velarized or contextual variant of /l/ from the clear /l/. Diacritics marked front vowels, such as umlauts on ö (/ø/) and ü (/y/), and trema on ë for a front /e/, ensuring representation of without introducing extraneous symbols. The schwa /ə/ employed the dedicated letter , reflecting its frequent occurrence in Uyghur structure. This configuration prioritized phonetic transparency over historical orthographic continuity, aiming for minimal ambiguity in mapping graphemes to sounds observed in native speech data. Aspirated stops (/pʰ/, /tʰ/, /kʰ/, /t͡sʰ/, /t͡ʃʰ/) lacked dedicated letters, with distinctions conveyed through positional context, adjacent quality, or phonotactic constraints rather than explicit markers, a decision informed by empirical analysis of Uyghur's contrasts where is allophonically conditioned in many environments. This reduced redundancy while fitting the language's 24- , which includes fricatives like /x/, /ɣ/, affricates /t͡s/, /t͡ʃ/, and nasals /ŋ/, covered by standard letters such as x, g (pre-vocalically), ts, ch (or c/j), and ng. The overall inventory avoided digraphs for core phonemes, favoring single graphemes to enhance correspondence and efficiency for Karluk dialects. The following table summarizes key letter-phoneme mappings, emphasizing special and modified forms; standard Latin letters (e.g., a /a/, b /b/, i /i/, etc.) handled remaining vowels (/o/, /u/) and consonants (/d/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /s/, etc.) without alteration:
Letter PhonemeNotes
ƣ/ɣ/Voiced counterpart to /x/; used intervocalically or post-vocalically.
/l̠/ or /ɫ/Velar or backed , contrasting plain l /l/.
ë/e/Front unrounded ; distinguishes from back /e/-like realizations.
ö/ø/Front rounded ; essential for Uyghur's rounded front .
ü/y/Front rounded high ; pairs with /u/ in harmony sets.
ə/ə/; common in unstressed syllables, represented distinctly to avoid merger with /a/ or /e/.
This structure reflected a to causal phonological realism, where choices derived from acoustic and articulatory data rather than borrowed conventions, enabling precise encoding of Uyghur's rounding and without the inefficiencies of systems.

Phonetic and Orthographic Features

The Uyghur New Script utilized a strictly linear left-to-right with explicit , departing from the cursive, right-to-left joining of the traditional to enhance compatibility with typewriters and printing presses. This design prioritized phonetic transparency, employing 32 Latin-based s adapted from the Chinese system to map directly onto Uyghur's 8 and 24 consonant phonemes, including modified letters like ⟨ə⟩ for schwa-like vowels, ⟨ɵ⟩ for rounded front mid vowels, and ⟨ƣ⟩ for the uvular fricative /ʁ/. Uyghur's , which mandates of suffix s to the root's backness and rounding features, was accommodated through discrete graphemes for each quality (e.g., ⟨a⟩ vs. ⟨e⟩, ⟨o⟩ vs. ⟨ö⟩), enforcing strict alternation without reliance on contextual inference or stacking beyond base forms. Diphthongs such as /aj/ and /ej/ followed conventions (e.g., ⟨ay⟩, ⟨ey⟩), while consonant clusters were spelled sequentially without ligatures, reflecting the language's avoidance of complex onsets beyond /C(C)V/ patterns. These conventions reduced ambiguity in homophonous sequences compared to under-specified systems, though empirical validation remains limited to anecdotal reports from implementation eras. Borrowed heavily from orthographic principles, the script's phonetic focus arguably advanced short-term by aligning representation with romanization norms, eroding entrenched Turkic-Arabic scribal traditions tied to Islamic . However, post-adoption assessments indicate no sustained gains; repeated reforms instead correlated with elevated illiteracy rates, as adaptation resistance and policy reversals disrupted acquisition continuity. Long-term cognitive benefits for reading in a vowel-harmonic system lack substantiation, with abandonment in 1982 underscoring insufficient causal efficacy against cultural inertia.

Comparison to Other Uyghur Scripts

The New Script, a Cyrillic-derived system with explicit letters for all phonemes including Uyghur's eight vowels, provided a more straightforward phonographic representation than the traditional Perso- script, which relies on connections and right-to-left writing despite reforms adding dedicated letters and diacritics for full . This linear, left-to-right facilitated mechanical reproduction and initial decoding for non-specialists, but sacrificed the interconnected forms and calligraphic heritage of , which embody cultural and Islamic religious associations central to identity. Compared to the Cyrillic alphabet employed among Central Asian Uyghur communities, the New Script featured a streamlined inventory closer to 32 core letters, emphasizing precise vowel diacritics tailored to Uyghur harmony without extraneous Soviet-era modifications, thereby achieving greater orthographic efficiency post the 1960 Sino-Soviet rift. Its adaptations prioritized phonetic consistency over the broader 36-plus characters in regional Cyrillic variants, which often incorporated digraphs for diphthongs less optimally suited to eastern dialects. Relative to the 1930s (Uyghur Yëziqi), the New Script incorporated standardized graphemes influenced by contemporaneous romanization efforts, enhancing cross-linguistic compatibility and modernity in , though 's lack of lexical tones rendered such elements redundant for native . Proponents highlighted its potential for simplified standardization amid industrialization, yet the predecessor's similar short tenure underscores recurring rejection of romanized systems in favor of scripts aligning with ethnic-linguistic traditions. Empirical claims of enhanced accessibility in the New Script, such as purported gains in speed, remain unsubstantiated by longitudinal data, with its 17-year implementation followed by reversion to indicating that technical efficiencies did not translate to sustained organic adoption, likely due to top-down overriding cultural preferences.

Usage Period and Transition

Application in Education and Media (1965-1982)

The Uyghur New Script was primarily implemented in primary and across , where it coexisted with the traditional but served as the main instructional medium to standardize efforts. A 1965 primer designed to teach the script achieved a print run of 600,000 copies, incorporating Maoist ideological content to align with contemporary mobilization campaigns. Publishing houses like the Xinjiang People's Press produced over 10 million volumes after 1956, with approximately 60% consisting of textbooks that increasingly adopted the New Script for pedagogical materials. Disruptions during the (1966-1976) hindered full efficacy, as political excesses interrupted curriculum consistency and teacher training. In media, the script facilitated transitions in print outlets, with newspapers such as employing it from 1966 onward and journals like dedicating issues to orthographic instruction. Xinjiang Broadcasting adapted Uyghur-language radio content to leverage the script's phonetic transparency, aiding script preparation for on-air clarity despite the oral medium's dominance. These shifts supported expanded Uyghur-language output amid state-directed , though reliance on Ili standards introduced inconsistencies in spelling and nomenclature across broadcasts and periodicals.

Factors Leading to Abandonment

Following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 and the initiation of Deng Xiaoping's reforms from 1978, Chinese policy shifted toward cultural liberalization and pragmatic governance, which reframed the Uyghur New Script—introduced amid the ideological fervor of the early 1960s—as an artifact of excessive radicalism associated with the Cultural Revolution's disruptions. This script, a Latin-based system influenced by Pinyin and Soviet Turkic alphabets, was perceived as a break from traditional Uyghur orthographic practices tied to Arabic, which had persisted despite earlier experiments. Deng-era emphasis on stability and ethnic cohesion prioritized restoring familiar cultural elements to foster integration among minorities, viewing the New Script's imposition as counterproductive to these goals. Practical challenges compounded this ideological reevaluation, as implementation revealed persistent difficulties in user proficiency and retention, with many informally reverting to variants due to its established in religious and literary contexts. Linguistic surveys and feedback from the late 1970s indicated suboptimal adaptation, particularly among older generations and rural populations, where the New Script's phonetic mappings clashed with ingrained habits, leading to inefficiencies in everyday communication and . The decline in anti-religious campaigns post-1978 further eroded support for the script, as Arabic's association with Islamic heritage regained legitimacy, aligning with broader efforts to mitigate ethnic tensions through cultural accommodation rather than enforced innovation. By 1980, pilot programs testing dual-script usage in select regions underscored public inclination toward , highlighting readability advantages and resistance to retraining costs, which informed the mounting case against sustaining the New Script. These pressures, rooted in policy pragmatism over ideological purity, marked the script's effective by the early 1980s, independent of claims about its inherent orthographic , which lacked long-term empirical validation amid the transition.

Reversion to Arabic Script (1982)

In September 1982, the Fifth People's Congress of the Uyghur Autonomous Region passed a at its 17th session to terminate the use of the Uyghur New Script and reinstate the Arabic-based script as the official . This action followed extensive of input and was formalized by a notice from the People's on November 11, 1982, mandating the restoration across governmental, educational, and media domains. The policy explicitly cited the New Script's inherent shortcomings—such as orthographic inadequacies—and the entrenched familiarity of the among after centuries of use, noting that the former "was not actually accepted by people because of its own shortcomings and the people’s long-term use of the ." Transition mechanisms emphasized gradual integration, with adjustments to handwriting rules, letterforms, and efforts to the scripts. Dual-script accommodations were implicitly supported during the shift, culminating in full enforcement of the starting January 1, 1984, though orthographic refinements and bilingual policies extended implementation support into 1987. The Uyghur Autonomous Region Language and Script Working Committee facilitated logistics through the issuance of pamphlets, an orthographic in 1985, and targeted programs to reprint and adapt educational and materials. Immediate outcomes included swift institutional compliance, driven by the script's alignment with Turkic-Islamic heritage and perceived practicality over the New Script's foreign-influenced design, which had severed ties to traditional literature. State rhetoric framed the reversion as a pragmatic correction to restore cultural continuity, eschewing acknowledgment of the New Script's earlier politically mandated imposition during the . This rapid pivot enhanced access to pre-1965 heritage texts while necessitating retraining for recent literacy cohorts, marking a key stabilization in Xinjiang's post-1978 language policies.

Reception, Impact, and Controversies

Domestic and Linguistic Reception

The , a Latin-based system introduced in , was designed to provide a more phonetically accurate representation of the language's and consonant clusters compared to the Perso-Arabic script's structure, which often omits short vowels. Domestic linguists affiliated with institutions, such as those on the Language and Script Committee, endorsed this feature in early implementation reports, arguing it simplified orthography for agglutinative Turkic and supported broader in . However, empirical usability assessments were limited, with official metrics focusing on rollout rather than comparative outcomes. Among speakers, practical reception was marked by reluctance and low voluntary adoption, as evidenced by sluggish implementation in everyday use despite mandatory policies. analyses indicate that while the script's alphabetic nature theoretically reduced ambiguities in reading unfamiliar words, speakers familiar with Arabic-script religious texts experienced difficulties transitioning, leading to persistent error rates in writing complex suffixes typical of Uyghur's synthetic structure. Oral accounts from the period, subordinated to records, highlight toward enforced relearning, contributing to minimal retention post-1982 reversion. Turkic linguists outside critiqued the script for alienating users from the Chagatai literary tradition tied to orthography, viewing the Latin shift as disruptive to cultural continuity in reading classical texts. In contrast, reports emphasized implementation successes in rural areas without addressing underlying adoption barriers or comparative error data, reflecting institutional priorities over independent verification. Overall, while the script offered orthographic innovations, domestic feedback underscored usability challenges rooted in linguistic habits and transitional friction rather than inherent flaws.

Political Motivations and Criticisms

The adoption of the Uyghur New Script in 1965 aligned with the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) script latinization campaigns for minority languages, drawing partial inspiration from Soviet-era reforms while incorporating Pinyin-derived diacritics to facilitate phonetic alignment with romanization and promote linguistic integration. This move preceded the (1966–1976), during which broader ideological drives to dismantle the ""—encompassing old customs tied to religious traditions—targeted the 's longstanding Islamic connotations as emblematic of feudal backwardness, prioritizing state-directed modernization over indigenous orthographic continuity. Such reforms reflected causal priorities of , embedding compatibility with Han-centric systems to erode cultural distinctiveness under the guise of scientific progress, rather than responding to demonstrated phonetic deficiencies in the . Critics, including analyses of CCP language policies, contend the New Script's imposition bypassed meaningful Uyghur consultation, with formal adoption by a centralized Language and Script Committee overriding community reluctance, akin to Soviet manipulations that shifted Uyghur scripts from Latin to Cyrillic in the 1940s to sever pan-Turkic affiliations. Absent referenda or efficacy trials, internal policy emphases on quotas for script rollout—evident in uneven educational mandates—privileged ideological conformity over empirical outcomes, resulting in persistent literacy shortfalls and burdensome retraining demands that post-hoc rationales later downplayed. The 1982 abandonment, prompted by these practical failures amid post-Cultural Revolution pragmatism, reinstated a modified Arabic script without documented mass opposition, highlighting top-down inefficiencies where state fiat trumped adaptive local needs. Controversies surrounding the reforms often invoke as cultural suppression, yet the rapid reversion—coupled with 's enduring dominance in Uyghur media and today—counters absolutist interpretations of intent to eradicate , as the script's brevity and familiarity fostered sustained usage absent coercive post-1982. This policy oscillation underscores inefficiencies in centralized engineering of orthographic change, where initial abandonments of for Latin yielded to reversion not through revolt but recognition of mismatched implementation, favoring skeptical assessments of bureaucratic overreach over narratives framing isolated reforms as wholesale genocidal vectors.

Long-Term Legacy and Modern Relevance

The Uyghur New Script's primary long-term legacy lies in its contribution to broader debates on for , where it highlighted challenges in adapting Latin alphabets to Uyghur amid ideological shifts. Post-1982, its influence within proved negligible, with the script abandoned in favor of the reinstated system, reflecting limited organic adoption despite state promotion. In linguistic terms, it prompted minimal carryover in phonetic standardization, as subsequent Arabic orthography reverted to traditional conventions without incorporating New Script innovations. Critics have noted that the script's imposition and rapid reversal disrupted generational continuity, requiring older Arabic-proficient readers to navigate Latin materials from the intervening period, though empirical evidence of widespread decline remains sparse and tied to broader instability rather than the script alone. This underscores the resilience of the , which endured multiple state-driven changes—from pre-1965 Arabic, to Latin variants, and back—demonstrating greater alignment with cultural and practical preferences absent enforced use. In communities, informal Latin variants drew partial inspiration from historical efforts like the New Script, facilitating digital communication, but formal writing predominantly retained . Modern relevance persists in niche digital archiving and conversion tools, with software developed since the early enabling transcription between New Script Latin, , and other Uyghur variants to preserve historical texts. Examples include open-source converters handling Uyghur Latin Yëziqi (ULY), a descendant form, though usage remains rare and overshadowed by dominance in both and contexts. No organized campaigns have emerged, as 's entrenched position—bolstered by cultural continuity and practical utility—has prevailed over predictions of Latin's inevitability during earlier reforms. This outcome illustrates the limited efficacy of top-down script engineering without sustained grassroots or technological reinforcement, with literacy rates stabilizing post-reversion.

References

  1. [1]
    Uyghur language and alphabets - Omniglot
    Jul 23, 2025 · Uyghur New Script. This version of the Latin alphabet, known as Uyghur Yëngi Yëziqi or Uyƣur Yəngi Yəziⱪ (UYY), was used to write Uyghur between ...
  2. [2]
    The Story of a Sacred Uyghur Gift for a Sacred Pilgrimage - Uyghur ...
    In 1982, China abolished the Soviet-influenced, Chinese Pinyin-based “Uyghur New Script” and reinstated the Arabic-based Uyghur script—a policy led by the ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] ROMANIZATION OF UYGHUR (Uighur) - Geographic Names Server
    Uyghur script is written from right to left and does not make a distinction between upper and lower case. This BGN/PCGN Agreement reflects the New Uyghur Latin ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Final proposal to encode Old Uyghur in Unicode
    Dec 18, 2020 · The term 'Uyghur script' applies to both the Sogdian-based script used for medieval Turkic languages and the later Arabic-based orthography used ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Breaking Arabic: the creative inventiveness of Uyghur script reforms
    Oct 14, 2021 · Instead of switching to a different script, as did the Turks, they chose to stay as close as possible to their cultural heritage of the Arabic ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Reading Uyghur - Nicholas Kontovas
    A brief history of the Uyghur Arabic script ... "The Threshold of Truths' by Adīb. Ahmad Yüknäki, written in a later version of the Old Uyghur script with a ...
  7. [7]
    THE NEW ROMANIZED ALPHABET FOR UIGHUR AND KAZAKH ...
    Both are used in the same way in the Cyrillic alphabet for the Soviet Uighurs. It is worth remembering that two Scandi- navian languages, Danish and Norwegian ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] UYGHUR
    Chinese neologisms have entered the Uyghur language at a great rate, particularly in the 1960s when the Chinese state required Uyghur to use. Chinese scientific ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] The Xinjiang Conflict: Uyghur Identity, Language Policy, and ...
    Sep 19, 2025 · Actual policy, however, was chaotic, with Cyrillic officially adopted in 1956, officially abandoned in February 1957, and then reinstated later ...
  10. [10]
    The danger of teaching Uyghur language - PEN/Opp
    Nov 18, 2019 · In 1956 the Uyghur alphabet was first forced to change into Cyrillic because of the revolutionary friendship between China and the USSR. Then ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Access to Education in Xinjiang, China Dr. Mettursun Beydulla (Fatih ...
    Moreover, the percentage of Uyghurs over the age of 15 who have received a university education has only increased from 2.1% in 1990 to 3.1% in 2006 [6]. 2.
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Print and Power in the Communist Borderlands: The Rise of Uyghur ...
    Apr 4, 2019 · This dissertation demonstrates that socialist cultural policies, implemented in Chinese and Soviet Central Asia in the middle decades of the ...
  13. [13]
    Chinese colonialism in translation – Aziz Isa Elkun
    Beginning in the late 1950s, the XUAR Language and Script Committee made efforts to modernize the Uyghur language. The committee was given the task to ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] A Field Research of Chinese Uyghur People's Writing Reforms and ...
    There were two comprehensive reforms on a large scale. After the reforms,. Uyghur people reaffirmed the Arabic Uyghur scripts (Old. Uyghur scripts) as their ...
  15. [15]
    Uyghur Language
    May 14, 2013 · However the Latin alphabet was unpopular and in 1987 the Arabic script was reinstated as the official script for Uyghur in China. The name ...
  16. [16]
    Breaking Arabic: the creative inventiveness of Uyghur script reforms
    Uyghurs have reformed the Arabic script in a very inventive way. We describe the journey of the Uyghur Arabic writing system from abjad to phonography.
  17. [17]
    (PDF) Greetings from the Teklimakan: a handbook of Modern Uyghur
    ... Uyghur Latin yëziqi (ULY), in order to facilitate the learning of the Arabic-based script. This script has been widely used since 2000 as a means of ...
  18. [18]
    The language choices and script debates among the Uyghur ... - Gale
    Currently, Uyghur is written with the help of a modified Arabic script, just as it was in Xinjiang before the 1920s. Yet the majority of the twentieth century ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
    Xinjiang in the "Reform" Era, 1978-91: The Political and Economic ...
    Deng's reforms enabled greater cultural expression for ethnic minorities but inadvertently revived separatist sentiments. The dual strategy of integrating Han ...
  21. [21]
    China's oppression of Xinjiang's Uyghurs: a visual history - Coda Story
    Mar 11, 2020 · After Mao's death in 1976, his successor, Deng Xiaoping, led a policy of “reform and opening” that gave Uyghurs space to explore their cultural ...Missing: yëziqi 1978
  22. [22]
    The languages on Chinese banknotes
    Sep 16, 2013 · I remembered that it was slightly after 1980 that we completely switched to using the Uyghur Arabic-based script system. ... experiment for both ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Resisting Chinese Linguistic Imperialism: Abduweli Ayup and the ...
    In 1982, the CCP abandoned the Latin-based script for Turkic languages and officially reinstated a modified Arabic-based script, which remains in place ...
  24. [24]
    A Field Research of Chinese Uyghur People's Writing Reforms and ...
    This article will mainly talk about the reforms and also relate to their impacts on the developments of the Uyghur people in China. Copyright: © 2019, the ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Uyghur diaspora and Internet
    The Uyghur Latin script is rarely used today both in the diaspora and in the region. In the diaspora, some websites offer both versions to be considered of ...
  26. [26]
    Uyghur Script Converter
    Convert seamlessly between Uyghur Arabic, Latin (ULY), and Cyrillic scripts. Using a robust script for server-side conversion with URL/Email protection.
  27. [27]
    neouyghur/Uyghur-Multi-Script-Converter - GitHub
    This converter converts multiple Uyghur scripts such as ULS (Uyghur Latin Script), UAS (Uyghur Arabic Script), CTS (Common Turkish Script), UCS (Uyghur ...Missing: digital | Show results with:digital