Why Should Bilingualized Dictionary of Turkish Be Used in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 319 - 327, 15.04.2018

Sami Baskin

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.319

Abstract

The first person to learn Turkish as a foreign
language is a Chinese woman writing Turkish love letters for her exiled husband
in the 4th century. However, we do not know much about how this woman learned
Turkish. The known history of teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language goes back
to the first concrete material produced for this process. They are usually
bilingual dictionaries and the oldest one was written in the 11th century. It
is therefore more accurate to say that teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language
has a history of nearly a thousand years. The changing educational paradigm
since the 20th century has deeply influenced the teaching of language, which
was previously carried out in accordance with the grammar – translation method.
And, dictionaries ceased to be the main device for language teaching and became
a source of complementary materials in learning environment, which has
necessitated their re-regulation. Yet, Turkish dictionary authors continue to
maintain old habits and produce classical bilingual dictionaries. The bilingual
dictionaries, proven to be more helpful on second language teaching, have been
used across the world from the 1980s onwards. In this paper, the history of the
teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language is briefly explained by taking into
consideration the resources used in the second language teaching and then
answers are given to the questions "Why should bilingualized dictionaries
be used in the teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language" and "How
should two bilingual dictionaries be prepared?".

Keywords

Teaching Turkish as a foreign language, bilingual dictionaries, microstructure, macrostructure

References

• Agar, M. E. (1989). Kitabu fi’l-Fikh Bi-Lisani’t-Turki (Review-Text-Dictionary) (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
• Argunsah, M. (2014a). Orthography of Vowels in Codex Cumanicus. In O. Emiroglu, M. Godzinska & F. Majkowski (Eds.), Unrounded Vowels, Discussions on Turkolog (pp.634-646),. Department of Turkish Studies and Inner Asian Peoples Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Warsaw, Poland/Warsaw.
• Argunsah, M. (2014b). The Codex Cumanicus and Kıphcak Turkish in Armenian Alphabet Comparison in terms of Morphology. In A. Buran, E. Akkaya and etc. (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th International Symposiom of World Language Turkish (pp. 89-104). Elazig: Firat University.
• Baskin, S. (2012a). The structure of Turkish dictionaries in Mamluk Perios. Dede Korkut Journal, 1(1), 23-43.
• Baskin, S. (2012b). Es-Suzuru’z-Zehebiyye ve’l-Kitai’l-Ahmediyye fi’l-Lugati’t-Turkiyye (A Lexicographic Survey) (Unpublished Master Thesis), Samsun Ondokuz Mayis University, Institute of Social Sciences, Samsun, Turkey.
• Bayraktar, N. (2003). Historical Development of Teaching Turkish to Foreigners, Journal of Language, 119, 58-71.
• Caferoglu, A. (2000). History of Turkish Language I-II, Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi.
• Cuilian, Z. (2010). The effectiveness of the bilingualised dictionary: A psycholinguistic point of view. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics , 33(5), 3-14.
• Cifci, M. (2006). Problems of Turkish Teaching. In G. Gulsevin, & E. Boz (Eds.), Contemporary Problems of Turkish (pp. 77-134). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Ercilasun, A. B. (2007). History of Turkish Language, Ankara: Akcag Yayinlari.
• Hartmann, R., Rudolf K., & James, G. (1998). Dictionary of Lexicography, Routledge: London and New York.
• Humblé, P.  (2001). Dictionaries and Language Learners, Frankfurt am Main: Haag und Herchen.
• Ilmammedov, R. (2014). The Importance of Zemahseri’s Mukaddimetu’l-Edeb to Turkic Languages. Paper presented at Turkish World Scholars Summit: Sultans of Heart Meeting, Eskisehir, 26-28 May (pp.549-556). Eskisehir: TDKB.
• Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and “bilingualised” dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 189-196.
• Lew, R. (2004). Which Dictionary for Whom? Receptive Use of Bilingual, Monolingual and Semi-Bilingual Dictionaries by Polish Learners of English, Poland/Poznan: Motivex
• Olmez, M. (1998). Document: Historical Turkish dictionaries. Kebikec, 6, 109-110.
• Oz, Y. (2009). Persian-Turkish Dictionaries throughout the History, Ankara: Turk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari.
• Ozcam, C. (1997). Grammar studies on Turkish –Bibliographic essay-. Turkology Studies, 110, 121-163.
• Raudaskoski, S. (2002). Translation, the key or equivalent?, Kermerman Dictionary News, 10, 2-3.
• Sahin, A., & Yesilyurt, E. (2017). bibliographic research of books which written to teach Turkish to the english during the Ottoman period. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 5 (1), 102-113.
• Thumb, J. (2002). Dictionary Look-up Strategies and The Bilingualised Learners' Dictionary: A Think-Aloud Study, China: University of Hong Kong.
• Turk, V. (2012). Yabanci Dille Ogretim [Foreign Language Teaching]. Turk Yurdu, 101(302), 35-38.
• Yavuzarslan, P. (2005). Turkish lexicography in Ottoman period dictionaries and Semseddin Sami’nin Kamus-i Turki. DTCF Journal, 44 (2), 185-202.