Discourse Markers (DMs) in Turkish as a Foreign Language Coursebooks: A Corpus Driven Approach

Öz

This study examines the representation of discourse markers (DMs) in Turkish as a Foreign Language (TFL) coursebooks, comparing their distribution with spoken Turkish as documented in the Turkish National Corpus (TNC) (Spoken) by Aksan et al. (2012). The study analyzes the Yeni Hitit-1, Yeni Hitit-2, and Yeni Hitit-3 Turkish as a Foreign Language Coursebooks, manually identifying and quantifying the most frequent DMs found in TNC (Spoken). Normalized frequency values per million words were calculated, and the data were compared using statistical and visual analyses, including ratio comparisons and corpus-based benchmarks. The findings reveal that most high-frequency DMs in Turkish are either underrepresented, misrepresented, or entirely absent, particularly those that play a crucial role in interactional fluency, pragmatic appropriateness, and discourse organization. These results align with previous research highlighting the tendency of coursebooks to prioritize grammatical accuracy over discourse-level competence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish as a Foreign Language
• Discourse Markers
• Foreign Language Coursebooks

Etik Beyan

The research does not require ethics committee approval.

Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Ders Kitaplarında Söylem Belirleyicileri: Derlem Tabanlı Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde kullanılan ders kitaplarındaki söylem belirleyicilerini incelemek ve bu söylem belirleyicilerinin ders kitaplarındaki dağılımlarını, Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUD) Sözlü kısmında bulunan verilerle karşılaştırmaktır. (2012). Çalışma, Yeni Hitit-1, Yeni Hitit-2 ve Yeni Hitit-3 Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Ders Kitaplarını analiz ederek, Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUD) Sözlü kısmında bulunan en sık söylem belirleyicileri manuel olarak tespit edip ölçmektedir. Söylem belirleyicileri, milyon kelime başına normalleştirilmiş frekans değerleri, oran karşılaştırmaları ve derlem bazlı kıyaslamalar dahil olmak üzere istatistiksel ve görsel analizler kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, Türkçedeki en çok kullanılan söylem belirleyicilerin çoğunun, ders kitaplarında yetersiz temsil edildiğini, yanlış temsil edildiğini ya da tamamen bulunmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, ders kitaplarının dilbilgisel yapıları söylem yeterliliğine göre önceliklendirme eğiliminde olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe
• Söylem Belirleyicileri
• Yabancı Dil Ders Kitapları

Kaynakça

1. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, İ., & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 3223–3227). European Language Resources Association.
2. Alavi-Nia, M., & Mozaffari, M. (2014). Discourse particles in EFL and PFL course-books: Tracing text authenticity. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.402
3. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkçe Öğrenim Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi. (2019). Yeni Hitit yabancılar için Türkçe ders kitapları 1-3. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkçe Öğrenim Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi.
4. Caffi, C., & Janney, R. W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(3–4), 325–373. https://doi. org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5
5. Carlsen, C. (2010). Discourse connectives across CEFR levels: A corpus- based study. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 191–210). European Second Language Association.
6. Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024959
7. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
8. Curry, N., & McEnery, T. (2025). Corpus linguistics for language teaching and learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 58(2), 232–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000430

9. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
10. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
11. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030
12. Furkó, P. B. (2020). Discourse markers and beyond: Descriptive and critical perspectives on discourse-pragmatic devices across genres and languages. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37763-2
13. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261444807004144
14. Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–132.
15. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21
16. Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1177/003368829202300201
17. Kawashima, C. (2023). An analysis of pragmatic markers presented in ELT textbooks. In B. Ferguson, B. Lacy, & R. Derrah (Eds.), Learning from students, educating teachers: Research and practice (pp. 162–169). Japan Association for Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2022-19
18. Koprowski, M. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322–332. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/cci061
19. Lam, P. W. Y. (2010). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 260–281. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amp026
20. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
21. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
22. Mindt, D. (1997). Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 40–50). Longman.
23. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138
24. Norrick, N. R. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.007
25. Roulet, E. (1980). Interactional markers in dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 224–233.
26. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
27. Schmitt, N. (2023). Norbert Schmitt’s essential bookshelf: Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 56(3), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444822000039
28. Shimada, K. (2012). Discourse markers in EFL textbooks and spoken corpora: Materials design and authenticity. Language Education & Technology, 49, 215–244.
29. Timmis, I. (2015). Corpus linguistics for ELT: Research and practice. Routledge.
30. Wong, J. (2002). Applying conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2002.003
31. Yunus Emre Enstitüsü. (2016). Yedi İklim Türkçe ders kitapları A1- C2. Yunus Emre Enstitüsü.