3. Findings related to seventh grade students’ vocabulary knowledge
Class
|
Ord
|
Those speaking both Turkish and Arabic
|
Those speaking both Turkish and Kurdish
|
Turkish Speakers
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
7. GRADE
|
1
|
90
|
4
|
77
|
4
|
68
|
4
|
62
|
5
|
47
|
2
|
36
|
3
|
89
|
4
|
110
|
6
|
71
|
5
|
2
|
156
|
6
|
123
|
5
|
57
|
3
|
51
|
4
|
80
|
3
|
75
|
5
|
95
|
5
|
219
|
11
|
84
|
7
|
3
|
201
|
6
|
156
|
7
|
98
|
7
|
63
|
4
|
60
|
4
|
44
|
5
|
68
|
5
|
80
|
4
|
76
|
6
|
4
|
140
|
5
|
98
|
4
|
62
|
4
|
67
|
3
|
87
|
4
|
60
|
5
|
90
|
4
|
73
|
5
|
68
|
4
|
5
|
93
|
4
|
145
|
5
|
80
|
4
|
84
|
4
|
77
|
6
|
100
|
7
|
115
|
5
|
70
|
6
|
81
|
4
|
6
|
84
|
3
|
174
|
4
|
64
|
3
|
44
|
3
|
96
|
3
|
52
|
4
|
142
|
5
|
181
|
7
|
99
|
5
|
7
|
86
|
4
|
75
|
6
|
63
|
5
|
102
|
6
|
89
|
5
|
54
|
3
|
120
|
7
|
151
|
5
|
71
|
5
|
8
|
105
|
5
|
86
|
4
|
95
|
5
|
52
|
4
|
60
|
4
|
48
|
3
|
66
|
4
|
75
|
5
|
82
|
4
|
9
|
122
|
4
|
94
|
5
|
86
|
5
|
69
|
4
|
54
|
3
|
50
|
4
|
63
|
3
|
49
|
4
|
63
|
4
|
10
|
77
|
3
|
201
|
5
|
80
|
6
|
121
|
5
|
85
|
7
|
87
|
4
|
92
|
4
|
71
|
4
|
44
|
3
|
11
|
98
|
5
|
100
|
4
|
96
|
5
|
80
|
6
|
119
|
5
|
76
|
4
|
64
|
3
|
105
|
4
|
49
|
5
|
12
|
100
|
4
|
85
|
6
|
101
|
4
|
94
|
4
|
73
|
6
|
59
|
3
|
87
|
4
|
76
|
4
|
48
|
6
|
13
|
85
|
3
|
74
|
6
|
98
|
7
|
83
|
5
|
86
|
4
|
90
|
4
|
37
|
3
|
63
|
6
|
59
|
5
|
14
|
80
|
4
|
83
|
4
|
77
|
5
|
55
|
3
|
87
|
5
|
65
|
4
|
71
|
4
|
100
|
6
|
92
|
6
|
15
|
31
|
3
|
55
|
5
|
29
|
3
|
90
|
3
|
78
|
6
|
84
|
5
|
91
|
4
|
84
|
5
|
80
|
7
|
16
|
92
|
4
|
110
|
4
|
112
|
4
|
71
|
5
|
82
|
4
|
71
|
6
|
40
|
3
|
48
|
4
|
56
|
3
|
17
|
68
|
5
|
97
|
6
|
84
|
4
|
80
|
4
|
65
|
3
|
107
|
6
|
101
|
4
|
92
|
6
|
88
|
4
|
18
|
107
|
5
|
90
|
5
|
86
|
6
|
84
|
4
|
140
|
6
|
95
|
10
|
69
|
3
|
79
|
8
|
80
|
5
|
19
|
88
|
4
|
87
|
4
|
56
|
6
|
66
|
3
|
41
|
3
|
50
|
4
|
92
|
4
|
120
|
6
|
95
|
4
|
20
|
47
|
2
|
74
|
5
|
64
|
4
|
83
|
3
|
71
|
4
|
66
|
6
|
93
|
5
|
66
|
5
|
45
|
3
|
21
|
98
|
5
|
67
|
3
|
51
|
5
|
72
|
5
|
69
|
4
|
49
|
7
|
77
|
5
|
78
|
7
|
64
|
3
|
22
|
110
|
5
|
95
|
4
|
117
|
6
|
110
|
4
|
67
|
6
|
80
|
9
|
82
|
4
|
95
|
5
|
108
|
7
|
23
|
56
|
3
|
66
|
4
|
71
|
4
|
89
|
6
|
83
|
5
|
46
|
3
|
90
|
4
|
69
|
4
|
105
|
5
|
24
|
97
|
3
|
161
|
5
|
99
|
3
|
75
|
4
|
49
|
3
|
61
|
4
|
126
|
6
|
104
|
4
|
96
|
5
|
25
|
132
|
4
|
124
|
4
|
80
|
5
|
80
|
3
|
88
|
5
|
53
|
4
|
65
|
4
|
44
|
3
|
61
|
4
|
Total
|
2443
|
103
|
2597
|
118
|
1974
|
117
|
1927
|
104
|
1933
|
110
|
1658
|
122
|
2125
|
106
|
2302
|
134
|
1865
|
119
|
Average
|
98
|
4
|
104
|
5
|
79
|
5
|
77
|
4
|
77
|
4
|
66
|
5
|
85
|
4
|
92
|
5
|
75
|
5
|
General average
|
7014/75=94
|
5518/75=74
|
6292/75=84
|
Table 6: Vocabulary knowledge of 7th grade students in the texts
4. Findings related to eighth grade students’ vocabulary knowledge
Class
|
Ord.
|
Those speaking both Turkish and Arabic
|
Those speaking both Turkish and Kurdish
|
Turkish Speakers
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
A
|
AM
|
B
|
BM
|
C
|
CM
|
8. GRADE
|
1
|
112
|
5
|
129
|
5
|
99
|
4
|
79
|
4
|
70
|
4
|
63
|
5
|
140
|
6
|
100
|
6
|
87
|
5
|
2
|
140
|
4
|
103
|
5
|
85
|
4
|
85
|
5
|
88
|
3
|
64
|
4
|
152
|
6
|
109
|
5
|
105
|
6
|
3
|
125
|
4
|
160
|
6
|
108
|
5
|
81
|
5
|
96
|
5
|
48
|
4
|
120
|
5
|
116
|
5
|
77
|
5
|
4
|
116
|
5
|
152
|
5
|
90
|
7
|
100
|
5
|
83
|
4
|
79
|
5
|
102
|
6
|
90
|
5
|
95
|
5
|
5
|
102
|
4
|
130
|
6
|
93
|
5
|
104
|
5
|
78
|
4
|
82
|
5
|
150
|
5
|
127
|
5
|
124
|
7
|
6
|
109
|
5
|
100
|
5
|
128
|
8
|
74
|
3
|
91
|
6
|
54
|
3
|
100
|
5
|
111
|
6
|
122
|
5
|
7
|
108
|
6
|
115
|
5
|
80
|
5
|
69
|
3
|
100
|
5
|
67
|
5
|
99
|
4
|
140
|
5
|
49
|
4
|
8
|
117
|
5
|
151
|
7
|
96
|
6
|
90
|
4
|
80
|
4
|
80
|
4
|
89
|
4
|
95
|
5
|
90
|
5
|
9
|
189
|
6
|
85
|
4
|
100
|
6
|
81
|
4
|
96
|
5
|
75
|
4
|
80
|
4
|
137
|
5
|
105
|
4
|
10
|
163
|
5
|
180
|
6
|
139
|
10
|
105
|
4
|
85
|
4
|
95
|
5
|
94
|
5
|
108
|
4
|
69
|
3
|
11
|
85
|
7
|
101
|
4
|
87
|
6
|
65
|
4
|
99
|
4
|
105
|
4
|
80
|
5
|
96
|
6
|
100
|
5
|
12
|
49
|
4
|
97
|
4
|
80
|
5
|
87
|
5
|
75
|
5
|
46
|
4
|
65
|
4
|
60
|
3
|
108
|
5
|
13
|
100
|
5
|
69
|
6
|
57
|
5
|
96
|
6
|
89
|
5
|
77
|
3
|
48
|
3
|
70
|
4
|
76
|
5
|
14
|
111
|
6
|
80
|
5
|
85
|
4
|
67
|
4
|
128
|
7
|
80
|
4
|
62
|
3
|
45
|
4
|
86
|
8
|
15
|
105
|
7
|
91
|
4
|
84
|
6
|
77
|
7
|
90
|
4
|
82
|
4
|
79
|
3
|
85
|
4
|
45
|
7
|
16
|
131
|
5
|
142
|
7
|
78
|
5
|
104
|
5
|
86
|
5
|
76
|
4
|
87
|
5
|
71
|
4
|
63
|
6
|
17
|
124
|
5
|
107
|
5
|
75
|
4
|
128
|
8
|
90
|
6
|
61
|
6
|
99
|
4
|
90
|
6
|
94
|
4
|
18
|
90
|
4
|
81
|
4
|
60
|
4
|
96
|
4
|
103
|
5
|
114
|
5
|
78
|
4
|
100
|
4
|
92
|
5
|
19
|
78
|
4
|
94
|
4
|
86
|
4
|
80
|
6
|
115
|
5
|
72
|
6
|
107
|
5
|
104
|
6
|
63
|
4
|
20
|
59
|
4
|
68
|
4
|
46
|
5
|
85
|
4
|
98
|
4
|
83
|
4
|
52
|
5
|
68
|
5
|
37
|
3
|
21
|
82
|
4
|
90
|
4
|
69
|
7
|
86
|
4
|
45
|
3
|
54
|
4
|
81
|
4
|
97
|
4
|
74
|
4
|
22
|
63
|
5
|
100
|
6
|
83
|
6
|
91
|
5
|
67
|
3
|
78
|
5
|
93
|
4
|
117
|
5
|
69
|
5
|
23
|
106
|
5
|
84
|
4
|
90
|
5
|
88
|
6
|
78
|
5
|
89
|
4
|
77
|
4
|
102
|
5
|
88
|
5
|
24
|
71
|
4
|
80
|
5
|
64
|
5
|
83
|
6
|
101
|
5
|
55
|
4
|
85
|
5
|
150
|
7
|
74
|
4
|
25
|
38
|
4
|
45
|
3
|
71
|
6
|
90
|
4
|
73
|
4
|
60
|
5
|
42
|
3
|
65
|
3
|
55
|
4
|
Total
|
2573
|
122
|
2634
|
123
|
2133
|
137
|
2191
|
120
|
2204
|
114
|
1839
|
110
|
2261
|
111
|
2453
|
121
|
2047
|
123
|
Average
|
103
|
5
|
105
|
5
|
85
|
5
|
88
|
5
|
88
|
5
|
74
|
4
|
90
|
4
|
98
|
5
|
82
|
5
|
General average
|
7340/75=98
|
6214/75=83
|
6761/75=90
|
Table 7: Vocabulary knowledge of 8th grade students in the texts
Discussion and Results
The studies regarding bilingualism and including Turkish are generally conducted within the line of the Turks living abroad. Some of these studies deal with the language status of the Turks going abroad and some of them deal with the language status of the Turks living under the sovereignty of the states such as Russia, China, Iran etc. For instance, the studies The Testing Of Language Skills Of Bilingual Children And The Threshold Theory (Yağmur 2007) and The Phenomenon Of Bilingualism And The Problem Of Bilingual Education For Turkish People Living In Germany (Yılmaz 2014) are related to the Turks in Germany. The studies such as language Status in Field Republic and Position of Field Turkish (Killi 2006) are lated o the language usage of the Turks living in Middle Asia. In addition; it is possible to separate the studies related to bilingualism experienced domestically into three. These are the Turkish language learning of the foreign citizens, foreign language learning o the Turkish speakers (English, French etc.) and the acquisition of Turkish by the Turkish citizens with different roots and language as a second language. The first two of these situations are discretionary. However; the last one stems from the obligation of acquiring the official language by those dependent via the bond of citizenship. In fact, a situation that is acquired by itself is attained in a natural environment. The number of studies conducted in this field is very few. Bilingualism In Hatay and Interference due to Bilingualism (Cengiz and Türk 2009) that is among one of them is related to those speaking Arabic-Turkish and living in Hatay region. The study Bilingualism, Zazaki-Turkish Bilingual Academicians Language Use and Preferences (Kesmez 2015) is related to the academicians who could speak Zazaki-Turkish. The increase in the number of these studies will positively reflect on the second language acquisition process of Turkish.
Turkey is the junction point of many civilizations, ethnicities and languages. The people living in this geography are neighbours to Persian in the East, Arab in the South, Greek and Balkan in the west, Azeri, Armenian and Georgian in the Northeast. Therefore, the status of bilingualism is intensively felt in the nation borders or the regions close to these borders. There are bilingualism situations in the regions of Turkey, i.e. Arabic-Turkish in South cities, Kurdish–Turkish, Zazaki-Turkish in South East and East Anatolian Regions, Persian-Turkish, Azerbaijani-Turkish in East boundaries of Turkey, Laz-Turkish in East Black Sea Region, Pomak-Turkish in West Thrace Region, Circassian-Turkish in Middle Anatolian Region etc. Among these, the most significant ones are Arabic-Turkish and Kurdish–Turkish bilingualisms.
It is possible to divide bilingualism into two stages. The first one is discretionary bilingualism. These are Arabian, Afgani, Chinese or Africans who have come to Turkey and learnt Turkish besides Turkish people who have learnt especially English, French and other languages. The number of them is increasing day by day. The second one who can speak Arabic, Kurdish, Zazaish, Laz language or Circassian etc. besides Turkish is the bilinguals born in a bilingual family .The number of these people is decreasing day by day. This study is about their process of being bilingual and their acquisition of Turkish. Therefore, where and how they learn Turkish, which language they prefer in their social life and which language they learn before learning Turkish have been studied. As a consequence of this study, these results have been attained regarding the process of indigenous bilingualism in Turkey.
Those speaking Turkish and Arabic
|
Those speaking Kurdish and Turkish
|
They learn Turkish before school age
|
There are people who don’t know Turkish although they are at school age. They form 17% of their own age group.
|
They learn Turkish generally from their parents
|
The number of the people who learn Turkish from their sisters or brothers, TV or everyman is much more than the number of those who learn from their parents.
|
The communicative language is generally Turkish in a family (mother-child or father-child).The rate of the families who prefer speaking Turkish is %72.
|
The communicative language is generally Kurdish in a family (mother-child or father-child).The rate of the families who prefer speaking Turkish is %19.
|
Children prefer Turkish as a communicative language. The rate of their usage of Turkish at outside is much more than the rate at home. It is %84 at outside but %72 at home.
|
Children prefer Kurdish as a communicative language. But, the rate of their usage of Turkish at outside is much more than the rate at home. It is %41 at outside but %19 at home.
|
More than half of families teach their children Turkish primarily. The rate of families teaching their children Arabic primarily is only %44.
|
Families teach Kurdish to their children primarily. Only 19 out of 100 families teach their children Turkish primarily.
|
The number of the people who understand but cannot speak their parents’ language is increasing. There are 17 people who do not understand their parents’ language within the currently examined group.
|
There are some people who don’t understand their parents’ language. But, the number of them is less than the Arabian based. The people not understanding their parents’ language is only %4 of the group.
|
Table 8: The Differences between the Arabic and Kurdish in Terms of the Acquisition of Turkish As Second Language
Bilingualism in Turkey differs from region to region and even from village to village. But; when the examined groups are taken into consideration, it is clearly seen that there are considerable learning differences between the speakers of Arabic- Turkish and the speakers of Kurdish-Turkish. Kurdish-based individuals become bilingual late. Also, they use Turkish less in their social life. To see the effects of this on school success, three different writing activities have been conducted. These activities are as follows:
-
Describe a friend you love or appreciate.
-
Describe a story, a novel, a movie or a theatre play you like.
-
Please explain this idiom “Every man is the architect of his own future”.
The texts produced in these three different writing activities have been analysed in terms of some factors such as vocabulary (according to their quantity and frequency), the number of the sentences and their structure and students’ skills of applying the Turkish grammatical rules. The following results have been attained as a result of this examination:
-
As the classes increase during the middle school, the number of vocabulary items used by the individuals has increased.
-
The group expressing themselves with the least number of vocabulary items is the Kurdish-Turkish bilingual group.
-
Kurdish-Turkish bilinguals become bilingual later. It is possible to explain this result by considering the increase seen in the number of vocabulary items between 7th and 8th grade. The Turkish vocabulary usage numbers of the Kurdish-based individuals have significantly increased when they have been at the level of 8th grade. This group has increased the number of vocabulary items when compared to other groups. The increase between 7th and 8th grade levels has become 12.16% while it has been 4.25% in Arabic-Turkish bilinguals and 7.14% in Turkish monolingual students.
-
The individuals have had hardship in explaining any saying (Anyone is the architect of his/her own future) they have been requested to explain. It has been detected that they use less vocabulary items, they make more repetitions and they use less sentences in such activities. Instead, when they tell what they have seen, watched or knew closely, it has been seen that they use more vocabulary items, less repetitions and more sentences.
-
Bilingual individuals (Arabic-Turkish) are more successful in the writing activities when compared to monolingual individuals. They have expressed themselves with more vocabulary items. These results are not valid for Kurdish-rooted individuals, because they become bilingual in later ages. However; it is highly probable to reach similar data in a test to be applied to higher ages.
-
When the content of the texts attained from the writing activities have been analysed, it has been seen that the Kurdish-Turkish bilinguals have not been able to understand the sentence structure (syntax) of Turkish yet although they are at 5th grade level. For this reason, the existence of many meaningless structures has been detected in the texts.
-
In this study; the results attained in terms of vocabulary knowledge support the thesis of Allman “because bilingualism contributes to the mental development, the vocabulary knowledge is more in the bilinguals.” (Allman, 2005). Bilinguals speaking Arabic-Turkish have gained a clear advantage over the monolinguals as of 6th grade in terms of vocabulary knowledge. A significant increase has been observed in the vocabulary knowledge of Kurdish-Turkish speakers who become bilingual later as of 8th grade.
Some deficiencies of bilingual individuals at the end of 8th grade in terms of Turkish acquisition are as follows:
-
Forming sentences hard to understand due to syntactic errors: The most understandable sentences belong to the monolingual individuals. While only 4% of the sentences taking place in the papers of these students are hard to understand, this ratio is 11% of those speaking Arabic-Turkish and 19% of those speaking Kurdish-Turkish. Some part of the sentences hard to understand and what has been wanted to be said are as follows:
-
Sentence hard to understand
|
What should be said/what is wanted to be said
|
Geleceğimizi ve önümüzdekilerine dikkat etmemiz gerekir.
|
Geleceğimizi düşünmeli ve önümüzdekilere dikkat etmeliyiz. (We should think of our future and pay attention to what we encounter.)
|
Ve beraberliğimizi birlikte dünya üzerinde hep beraber el ele tutuşarak, kendimize güvenerek demektir
|
Ve beraberliğimizi hep beraber el ele tutuşarak sağlayabiliriz. Bu kendimize güvenmemizi de sağlar. (And, we can ensure our togetherness by joining our hands. This also ensures us to trust each other.)
|
Zaten mimar sözcüğün bizim kurduğumuz geleceğinin temelini tutarız.
|
Zaten buradaki mimar sözcüğü, bizim geleceğimizi inşa etmemiz anlamına gelir. (Already, the word “architect” here means us to establish our future.)
|
Bütün eşyalar deyitir.
|
Bütün eşyalar, değildir. (Not all the items.)
|
Ben filmi asla vazgeçmem.
|
Ben filmden asla vazgeçmem. (I never give up films.)
|
Table 9: Sentence hard to understand
-
Mostly encountered grammatical errors: Some individuals who are not competent in Turkish grammar or who cannot apply the rule although they learn it by heart cannot explain what they would like to express due to the wrong sentence formation. When the sentences are grammatically examined, 24% of the sentences formed by monolinguals, 41% of the sentences formed by Arabic-Turkish speakers and 63% of the sentences formed by Kurdish-Turkish speakers include grammatical errors. This ratio is too high. The students should learn the grammatical rules as well as applying them to be able to express themselves in more understandable expressions. Mostly encountered grammatical errors are as follows:
Grammatically Wrong Sentence
|
Grammar Error
|
Biz insanlar eğer bilgi sahibi olmasaydım.
Herkes geleceğinin hayalini kuruyoruz.
|
(subject-verb inconsistency)
|
Ama hayatlarını kavga, şaka ve birbirine tuzaklar kurarlar
|
(telling the verb according to the last object, forgetting other objects or not being able to inspect the conformity of them to this verb).
|
Taa Ayaz’ın Öykü’yü kaçırdığından sonra evlenmeleri
|
(leaving the sentence deficient, not being able to complete it)
|
Benle kardeşim bir gün filmin başına çıktık
|
(geçtik should have been used instead of çıktık. Not being able to find the convenient verb)
|
Geleceğimizi ve önümüzdekilerine dikkat etmemiz gerekir.
|
Not being able to find the inflections in accordance with the sentence formation, mixing the inflections of the words with similar function
|
Zaten mimar sözcüğün bizim kurduğumuz geleceğinin temelini tutarız.
|
Not being able to joint the convenient noun and verb while making united verbs
|
Herkes kendi geleceni bana şu zözü çarıştırıyor
|
Swallowing some sounds in the words geleceni and çarıştırıyor, turning s sound into z sound in the word zözü
|
Table 10: Grammar Error
-
Mixing the words with close sounds: Mixing some similar words belonging to the acquired second language is a situation encountered in bilingual individuals. Some examples reflecting this situation have been encountered in the examined texts. Some of them are as follows:
-
Misspelled
|
What has been wanted to be said
|
Words with close sounds
|
Ben kendim kendim mesleğimi yönetecem
|
Ben kendi mesleğime yöneleceğim (I will head for my own occupation)
|
(yönetecem-yöneleceğim)
|
Anlımın teri ile para kazanacağım
|
Alnımın teri ile para kazanacağım (I will make money with the sweat of my brow)
|
(anlımın-alnımın)
|
Küçüklerin hakları büyürlerinin elindedir
|
Küçüklerin hakları büyüklerinin elindedir (Rights of the little are up to the big)
|
(büyürlerinin-büyüklerinin)
|
Bütün eşyalar deyitir.
|
Bütün eşyalar, değildir. (Not all the items.)
|
(deyitir- değildir)
|
Yepyeni eşyalar odlunu biliyor
|
Yepyeni eşyalar olduğunu biliyor. (He knows that there are brand new items.)
|
(odlunu-olduğunu)
|
Table 11: Mixing the words with close sounds
-
Not knowing the difference between the verbal and written expression (writing as speaking): There is a difference between verbal and written communication. While local discourse is used in the verbal communication, official correspondence rules are valid in written communication. For this reason, writing has rules. The individuals are supposed to obey to these rules. For this reason, writing with the discourse in the verbal communication causes to some spelling errors. However; it has been observed that the monolingual individuals write as they speak as well as the bilingual individuals. In the examined texts; 21% of Arabic-Turkish speakers, 27% of Kurdish-Turkish speakers and 12% of the monolingual individuals have preferred to write as they speak. Some sentences belonging to local discourse are as follows:
-
Local Discourse
|
Form in Official Language
|
Those That Should Be Corrected
|
Herkes kendi geleceni bana şu zözü çarıştırıyor
|
“Herkes kendi geleceğinin mimarıdır” sözü bana şunu çağrıştırıyor. (The sentence “Anyone is the architect of his/her own future.” reminds me of this.)
|
(geleceni/geleceğini, zözü/sözü, çarıştırıyor/çağrıştırıyor)
|
Ben bir örtmen olacam (örtmen-öğretmen, olacam-olacağım)
|
Ben bir öğretmen olacağım. (I will become a teacher.)
|
(örtmen-öğretmen, olacam-olacağım)
|
Mesla uçan anaba
|
Mesela uçan araba. (flying car, for example)
|
(mesla-mesela, anaba-araba)
|
Meyerse Öykü hepsini yakmuştu
|
Meğerse Öykü hepsini yakmıştı. (However, Öykü had burnt them all.)
|
(Meyerse-meğerse, yakmuştu-yakmıştı)
|
Bir kız fakir diyer kız zengindi
|
Bir kız fakir diğer kız zengindi. (One of the girls was poor, the other one was rich.)
|
(diyer-diğer)
|
Ben tatile çıkacam
|
Ben tatile çıkacağım. (I will go on holiday.)
|
(çıkacam-çıkacağım)
|
Table 12: Not knowing the difference between the verbal and written expression
-
Miswriting: When the texts of the individuals speaking Kurdish-Turkish have been examined, it has been seen that all the individuals do not know where to use the upper and lower letters. Similar errors have been seen in 59% of Arabic-Turkish speakers and 42% of the speakers speaking only Turkish. It is necessary that the school activities and lesson contents conduct the activities that will teach the usage of upper and lower letters that are the most basic one of writing rules and especially the bilinguals be provided to write in a convenient way in accordance with the Turkish spelling rules.
-
Deficiencies in punctuation: There is no punctuation in 78% of Arabic-rooted students. This ratio is 89% in Kurdish-rooted students and 37% in monolingual Turkish individuals. However; all the students have errors in punctuation. There is a need for the activities that will provide a better usage of these signs.
-
Code-mixing from mother tongue: Because the students have preferred controlled writing, they have not made any transmission from their first language to the Turkish texts on the basis of vocabulary. However; in terms of syntax, there have been some involuntary transmissions. The most clear examples for this are the use of the conjunction “and” so many times by the Arabian rooted students and the preference of inverted sentences sometimes.
As a result; educational studies should be increased, the deficiencies and errors occurring in the studies should be terminated, the learning environments of the students should be enriched and the activities that will ensure the learning limits to go out of the borders of the school should be designed or the students speaking a language other than Turkish to be able to develop a health identity and to be able to acquire and use Turkish better. For instance; the deficiencies of the children seen in the artistic and cultural activities such as book, cinema and theatre observed in the texts and the ministry should be an intermediary for the children to go to different environments and take place in various artistic activities.
References
Allman, B. 2005. “Vocabulary size and accuracy of monolingual and bilingual preschool children.” ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ed: James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad and Jeff Mac Swan), 58-77, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Breton, R. 2007. Dünya dilleri atlası. İstanbul: NTV Yayınları
Buran, A. and Çak B., Y. 2012. Türkiye’de diller ve etnik gruplar. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları
Cengiz, K. and Türk, H. 2009. “Bilingualism in Hatay and interference due to bilingualism”. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 6 (12):190-208.
Duncan, H., D., Segalowitz, N. and Phillips, N. 2016. “Differences in L1 linguistic attention control between monolinguals and bilinguals”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (1): 106-121.
Friesen, D., C., Latman, V., Calvo, A. and Bialystok, E. 2015. “Attention during visual search: the benefit of bilingualism”. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(6): 693–702.
Hsieh, L. 2015. “Effect of bilingualism on multitasking: a pilot study”. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations 22:94-101.
Karaağaç, G. 2013. Dil bilimi terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
Kesmez, A. 2015. “Bilingualism, Zazaki-Turkish bilingual academicians language use and preferences”. Bingöl Üniversitesi Yaşayan Diller Enstitüsü Dergisi 1 (1):157-165
Killi, G. 2006. “Saha Cumhuriyetinde dil durumu ve Saha Türkçesinin konumu”. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 3 (2):61-70.
Konda Araştırma 2006. “Biz kimiz? toplumsal yapı araştırması”. Milliyet Gazetesi, 19.05.2006.
Kuo, L., J. And Anderson, R., C. 2012. “Effects of early bilingualism on learning phonological regularities in a new language” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 111:455–467.
Merrikhi, P. 2011. “The effect of "bilingualism" on Iranian ELT student's "critical thinking ability" (CT)”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1 (10): 1424-1431.
Önder, A., T. 2007.Türkiye’nin etnik yapısı. Ankara: Fark Yayınları
Poarch, G., J. and Bialystok, E. 2015. “Bilingualism as a model for multi tasking”. Developmental Review 35: 113–124.
Poepsel, T., J. and Weiss, D., J. 2016. “The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning”. Cognition 152: 9–19.
Şener, C. 2006. Türkiye’de yaşayan etnik ve dinsel gruplar. İstanbul: Etik Yayınları
Türkdoğan, O. 2008. Türk toplumunda Zazalar ve Kürtler. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları
Wiseheart, M., Viswanathan, M. and Bialystok, E. 2016. “Flexibility in tasks witching by monolinguals and bilinguals”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (1): 141–146.
Yağmur, K. 2007 . “The testing of language skills of bilingual children and the threshold theory”. Dil Dergisi 135: 60-76. Doi: 10.1501/Dilder_0000000067
Yilmaz, M., Y. 2014. “The phenomenon of bilingualism and the problem of bilingual education for Turkish people living in Germany”. Turkish Studies 9(3): 1641-1651. Doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.6216
Yoshida, H. 2008. “The cognitive consequences of early bilingualism”. Zero to Three 29 (2): 26-30.
Online References
The letter of the Ministry of National Education dd. 18.09.2014 and ref. 73860670/663.99/4033859 with the subject of “Auxiliary Lesson Materials”
http://www.ethnologue.com/country/TR/languages
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
