Albayrak F., Tüfekçioğlu B.

International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches (IJETSAR), vol.7, no.19, pp.1543-1595, 2022 (Peer-Reviewed Journal)

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 7 Issue: 19
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.35826/ijetsar.506
  • Journal Name: International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches (IJETSAR)
  • Journal Indexes: ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
  • Page Numbers: pp.1543-1595


In this study, it is aimed to examine the differences in written expressions of Turkish learners as a second language from Turkey Turkish in terms of typological features of Turkish. It is aimed to examine Turkish in terms of typological features. The data sources of the research consist of the written expression studies of at least B2 or C1 level learners who learn Turkish as a second language in language centers affiliated to various higher education institutions in Turkey. Participants consisted of 164 adults in total from 17 different countries: Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Palestine, Yemen, Chad, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Bangladesh and the Philippines. In the 2021-2022 academic year, the differences from Turkey Turkish were examined by using the descriptive analysis method on the written expression studies, which were obtained by performing written expression practices within the current course hours and the end-of-course exam periods in three different language centers. In determining these differences in the written expressions of the learners, the criteria of “Typology of Turkish” developed by Johanson and updated by Yılmaz (2016) in terms of Turkey Turkish were taken as basis. According to the results of the study it was observed that the differences from Turkey Turkish in the written expressions of Indo-Iranian, Afro-Asiatic, Austro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo languages and Indo-European Romanian and Germanic language speakers were mostly in phonological features, and this was followed by morpho-phonological, morphological and morphosyntactic differentiations, respectively and also syntactic typological differences were observed to be relatively less. In addition, the learners showed examples of differentiation mainly in the categories of atypical sounds of Turkish, typical vowels, vowel harmony, suffixes, absence of definite article, sentence dependence with verbs, limited pronoun use and left branching in syntax