Sakarya Dil Dergisi (Jun 2024)
Belirtili, Belirtisiz ve Takısız Ad Tamlaması in L2-Turkish Evidence From the Learning Difficulties of L1-Greek-speaking learners and Teaching Suggestions
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to show the difficulties encountered in the L2-acquisition process of the 3 AT types by L1-Greek-speaking university students of L2-Turkish. Ad Tamlaması (AT) is traditionally considered a hypernym umbrella term which undergoes a triple distinction in 3 hyponym sub-sets, namely Belirtili ‘definite’, Belirtisiz ‘indefinite’ and Takısız ‘bare/ suffixless’ Ad Τamlaması. However the current case in L2-Turkish teaching/ learning is that the AT category and its sub-sets are treated differently in L2-Turkish grammars and teaching/ learning coursebook material, which is a main reason why AT poses a major acquisition problem for adult L2-Turkish learners. The present study is based on error analysis results of written-based experiment tests completed by 47 L1-Greek university students studying Turkish as L2 at Democritus University of Thrace (Greece). The results will show, first, that performance rates are associated with the internal semantic, syntactic and functional properties of every AT type (Libben et.al., 2003; Mavridou, 2023). Second, with regard to AT mastering sequence, the stages L2-learners pass through in the acquisition process of the 3 AT forms will appear to be 'universal' and applicable to all learners beyond any individual differences, such as the L2-language proficiency level (beginner vs. intermediate). Finally, with regard to the root or origin of the errors made, errors are explained by the internal complex structure of L2-Turkish itself (Bayyurt & Martı, 2016; Kaili-Çeltek & Papadopoulou, 2016) and more specifically by the more-or-less misleading formal similarity of the 3 AT types in question which hides or underestimates the underlying differences between them (Mavridou, 2020, 2023). In terms of L2-Turkish didactics, L2-Turkish course- and grammar-books should look for ways to facilitate AT L2-learning. The 3 AT forms should not be treated holistically as a unified category of izafet or compound types, because this gives rise to a misleading homogeneous treatment of the 3 forms, which gives burdens to L2-learners. Rather, a more-or-less anti-holistic approach should be put forward in the sense of stressing the functional, syntactic, structural and/or semantic characteristics of every AT type.
