تأثیر کاربرد واژگان مشترک زبان فارسی و ترکی استانبولی بر درک خوانداری فارسی‌آموزان ترکیه‌ای

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی ‏زبانان، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی(ره)

2 نویسندۀ مسئول، استادیار زبان شناسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی(ره)

3 استادیار گروه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی(ره)

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی تأثیر میزان استفاده از واژگان مشترک زبان فارسی و ترکی استانبولی بر مهارت خوانداریِ زبان فارسی در بین فارسی‌آموزان ترکیه‌ای است و این‌ که واژگان مشترکِ این دو زبان (دارای مشابهت آوایی و معنایی) در چه سطحی از زبان‌آموزی (مبتدی، متوسط و پیشرفته)، فرایند درک خوانداری را تسهیل می‌کند. ابتدا از میان فارسی‌آموزان ترکیه‌ای، ٧۵ نفر در دسترس (شامل ٢۵ نفر در هر سطح) با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها، آزمون درک خوانداری جداگانه برای هر سطح بود. برای تهیه آزمون، ابتدا یک متن مجزا برای هریک از سطوح، از کتاب‌های خواندن و درک مطلب مؤسسة‌ لغت‌نامه دهخدا انتخاب شد. سپس هر متن به دو قسمتِ تقریباً مساوی تقسیم شد. در قسمت اول، بدون تغییر در معنا و مفهوم متن، تا حد امکان به‌جای واژگان مشترک، از واژگان غیرمشترک استفاده شد تا واژگان مشترک به حداقل برسد. در قسمت دوم، از واژگان مشترک بیشتری استفاده شد تا واژگان مشترک در متن افزایش یابد. فارسی‌آموزانِ هر سطح، در دو آزمون همتا با سؤالات واژگان مشترک و غیرمشترک، در دو نوبت مجزا به فاصلة یک روز شرکت کردند. نمرات شرکت‌کنندگان، از طریق آزمون‌های آماریِ تی- زوجی و طرح دوعاملی درون‌گروهی – برون‌گروهی تحلیل شد و نتایج فرضیة اول پژوهش، مبنی بر افزایش درک خوانداری، با افزایش کاربرد واژگان مشترک در فارسی‌آموزان ترکیه­ای تأیید شد. همچنین فرضیة دوم، مبنی بر این‌ که هرچه از مراحل ابتداییِ زبان‌آموزی به‌سمت مراحل پیشرفته‌تر می‌رویم، تأثیر واژگان مشترک بیشتر خواهد شد، برای زبان‌آموزان مبتدی تأیید گردید؛ ولی تفاوت معناداری در عملکرد زبان‌آموزان متوسط و پیشرفته مشاهده نشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Using Shared Vocabulary of Persian and Istanbul Turkish on the Reading Comprehension of Persian-learners of Turkey

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somaayeh Mazaheri Mosleh 1
  • Roohollah Mofidi 2
  • Mohammad Bagher Mirzaei Hesarian 3
1 MA graduate in Teaching Persian to Non-Persian speakers, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
2 Corresponding author, Assistant Professor of Linguistics, English Department, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Teaching Persian to Non-Persian speakers, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
چکیده [English]

This research aims at investigating the effect of shared vocabulary of Persian and Istanbul Turkish on the reading comprehension of Persian-learners of Turkey (PLT), and at which level of language-learning (beginner, intermediate, or advanced) this shared vocabulary (i.e. the words with phonological and semantic resemblance) ​​facilitates the reading comprehension process. At first, an accessible sample of 75 PLTs (25 from each level) was selected randomly. The data gathering instruments were separate exams of reading comprehension for each level. To prepare the exam materials, we selected a text for each level from Dehkhoda Institute couresbooks of Reading and Comprehension. Then, each text was divided into two almost equal parts. In the first part, the shared words were substituted by non-shared words to reduce the usage of shared vocabulary without changing the meaning in the text. In the second part, more shared words were employed to increase the usage of shared vocabulary in the text. PLTs of each level participated in two parallel exams with shared and non-shared vocabulary texts on two separate times with one day interval. Participants’ scores of the exams were analyzed through paired t-tests and two-factor In-group/Out-group design. The results confirmed our first hypothesis: the reading comprehension increases as we increase the usage of shared vocabulary. Furthermore, our second hypothesis was confirmed for the beginners: as we moved towards more advanced levels of language-learning, the effect of shared vocabulary increased. However, we could not observe any significant changes among intermediate and advanced learners with regard to this hypothesis.
Extended Abstract:

Introduction

This research aims at investigating the effect of shared vocabulary of Persian and Istanbul Turkish on the reading comprehension of Persian-learners of Turkey (PLT), and to analyze at which level of language-learning (beginner, intermediate, or advanced) this shared vocabulary (i.e. the words with phonological and semantic resemblance) ​​facilitates the reading comprehension process. As our main research problem, we focused on the possible effect of using the shared vocabulary of Standard Persian and Istanbul Turkish on the reading comprehension skill of Persian-learners of Turkey. There are two hypotheses which are followed in this research: 1) the reading comprehension increases as we increase the usage of shared vocabulary; and 2) as we move towards more advanced levels of language-learning, the effect of shared vocabulary increases.

Theoretical concepts

The shared words have approximately similar form and meaning in the two languages. Either they come from the same genetic (i.e. family) origin, or they are a consequence of language contact and lexical borrowing. These words have the same linguistic origin and are generally similar and have a similar meaning. They do not necessarily have to appear in the same form, and there may be slight phonetic differences between them. There may also be a semantic difference between them. Borrowing is a process which is triggered as a result of language contact and through bilingual people, during which phonetic, lexical and even syntactic elements are introduced from one language to another. Then, due to various factors, these elemments are accepted by the majority of a language community and become commonly used.
Generally, there are three types of linguistic borrowing: phonological, lexical and grammatical. Phonological or phonetic borrowing is a process in which the phonetic elements and patterns of a language are adopted by another language, and they make changes in the phonetic system of the target language. Lexical borrowing at the vocabulary level is the most common type of borrowing, and therefore, it can be seen in most languages. Finally, grammatical borrowing is the transfer of morphological or syntactic elements and patterns, grammatical roles or grammatical relations from one language to another.

Review of literature

As a result of geographical proximity of Persian- and Turkish-speaking people ​​for thousands of years, a large amount of shared vocabulary between them is observed as a consequence of lexical borrowing. They ​​have borrowed a lot of words from each other throughout their history, or both have borrowed the same words from other languages, e.g. Arabic, French and English. Ahmadkhani & Rashidian (2016), Nazari & Asadollah-pour Araqi (2015), Pourmohammadi Amlashi & Ghafourian (2020a), Pourmohammadi Amlashi & Ghafourian (2020b), Rasuli-nejad et al. (2021), Meshkin-fam et al. (2021), and Taheri & Ghafurian (2022) can be mentioned as studies on borrowing and/or second-language learning. They show that loanwords can have a facilitating or interfering effect on foreign language learning. Some researchers emphasize the advantage of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning, and consider loanwords as great resources in language learning.

Methodology

For the aims of the research, an accessible sample of 75 PLTs (25 for each level, i.e. beginner, intermediate, and advanced) was selected randomly. The data gathering instruments were separate exams of reading comprehension for each level. To prepare the exam materials, we selected a text for each level from Dehkhoda Institute couresbook series “Reading and Understanding Persian for Non-Persian language Learners” (Jafari et al., 2014; Jafari & Navvabi, 2017). Then, each text was divided into two almost equal parts. In the first part, the shared words were substituted by non-shared words, so that the usage of shared vocabulary is reduced as much as possible, without changing the meaning in the text. In the second part, more shared words were employed to increase the usage of shared vocabulary in the text. PLTs of each level participated in two parallel exams with shared and non-shared vocabulary texts on two separate times with one day interval. 25 questions were designed for the beginner group and 30 questions for each group of the intermediate and advanced learners. They had to recognize the practical meaning of the words from the sentential context. Furthermore, for the beginners, the questions were translated to Turkish as well, so that the learners could answer the questions more easily, without much problem. In order to extract the examples of shared and non-shared words in Persian and Turkish, we relied on Anvari (2002) and Kanar (2012), respectively.

Data analysis

Participants’ scores of the exams were analyzed through paired t-tests and two-factor In-group/Out-group design. These statistical analyses were employed to verify or reject the two hypotheses which were mentioned in Section 1 (Introduction).

Conclusion

The results confirmed the first research hypothesis: the reading comprehension increases as we increase the usage of shared vocabulary. Furthermore, the second research hypothesis was confirmed for the beginners: as we moved towards more advanced levels of language-learning, the effect of shared vocabulary increased. However, we could not observe any significant change for the intermediate and advanced learners with regard to this hypothesis.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Shared vocabulary
  • Persian
  • Istanbul Turkish
  • Persian-learners
احمدخانی، محمدرضا و رشیدیان، دیانا. (1395). بومی‌سازی واجی و صرفی وام­واژه­ها در زبان ترکی آذربایجانی. زبان‌شناخت، 13، 1- 15.
آژند، یعقوب. (1364). ادبیات نوین ترکیه. تهران: امیرکبیر.
استاینبرگ، دنی. (1387). درآمدی بر روانشناسی زبان. ترجمۀ ارسلان گلفام. تهران: سمت.
انوری، حسن. (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: سخن.
پورمحمدی املشی، نصرالله و غفوریان، مریم. (1399الف). اهمیت و نقش مشترکات و پیوندهای زبانی در آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‏زبانان (مطالعة موردی زبان‏آموزان هندی و اردوزبان). پژوهش­نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی­زبانان، 9(2)، 307-329.
پورمحمدی املشی، نصرالله و غفوریان، مریم. (1399ب). بررسی تطبیقی تأثیر متقابل واژه­ها و ریشه­های مشترک زبان فارسی، هندی و اردو (روابط فرهنگی – تاریخی و زبانی). شبه­قاره (ویژه­نامه نامۀ فرهنگستان)، 11، 167-196.
جعفری، فاطمه و نوابی، اعظم­السادات. (1396). خواندن و درک مطلب فارسی ویژة زبان‌آموزان غیرفارسی‌زبان (دوره‌ میانی)، چاپ دوم. تهران: مؤسسه لغت‌نامه و مرکز بین­المللی آموزش زبان فارسی.
جعفری، فاطمه؛ نوابی، اعظم­السادات و ابراهیمی، حمید. (1393). خواندن و درک مطلب فارسی ویژۀ زبان‌آموزان غیرفارسی‌زبان (دورۀ پایه). تهران: مؤسسه لغت‌نامه و مرکز بین­المللی آموزش زبان فارسی.
رسولی‌نژاد مصطفی، میراحمدی، رضا و کشاورز، حبیب. (1400). تأثیر تداخل زبانی مثبت در یادگیری زبان عربی. پژوهش در آموزش زبان و ادبیات عرب، 3(4)، 187-202.
رضائی باغ­بیدی، حسن. (1388). تاریخ زبان­های ایرانی. تهران: مرکز دائره­المعارف بزرگ اسلامی.
ریچاردز، جک سی. و راجرز، تئودور. (1384). رویکردها و روش­ها در آموزش زبان. ترجمة علی بهرامی. تهران: رهنما.
زارع شاهمرسی، پرویز. (1391). فرهنگ واژگان دخیل ترکی در زبان­های فارسی و عربی. تهران: تکدرخت.
ستوده­نما، الهه و سلگی، فرزانه. (1396). یادگیری واژگان زبان دوم: ریشه­شناسی یا لغات مترادف؟. زبان­پژوهی، ۲۳، 105-120.
طاهری، حمید و غفوریان، مریم. (1401). نقش کاربرد وام­واژه های عربی و فارسی در آموزش زبان فارسی (مطالعۀ موردی فارسی‌آموزان عرب­زبان). پژوهش­نامة آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 11(1)، 3- 28.
عالی­زاده، عبدالرضا. (1385). اجرای تحقیق به روش دلفی. تهران: یوسف.
غفارثمر، رضا. (1396). مبانی جامعه­شناسی زبان. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
قندهاری، فیروز. (1383). ریشه­شناسی و دانش ساخت­واژه و تأثیر آن بر یادگیری و توسعة واژگان زبان انگلیسی. پژوهش زبان‌های خارجی، ۱۶، 143-154.
کالوه، لویی ژان. (1379). درآمدی بر زبان­شناسی اجتماعی. ترجمة محمدجعفر پوینده. تهران: نقش جهان.
مدرسی، یحیی. (1368). درآمدی بر جامعه­شناسی زبان. تهران: مؤسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی.
مشکوه­الدینی، مهدی. (۱۳۷۳). سیر زبا­­ن­شناسی. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی.
مشکین­فام، مهرداد؛ ایزدی، الهام؛ هاشمیان، لیلا و خاتونی، شیوا. (1399). آموزش واژگان فارسی بر اساس تأثیر استفاده از زبان اول بر آموزش زبان دوم. مطالعات آموزش زبان فارسی، 6 (11)، 11- 36.
نظری، علیرضا و اسدالله­پور عراقی، زهره. (1394). تداخل زبانی و دگرگونی معنایی وام‌واژه‌های عربی و جنبه‌های تأثیر آن بر ترجمه از عربی. پژوهش­های ترجمه در زبان و ادبیات عربی، 5 (13)، 85- 106.
نیشن، پل و جان مکالیستر. (1395). طراحی برنامة آموزشی زبان. ترجمة مهین­ناز میردهقان و همکاران. تهران: خاموش.
وارداف، رونالد. (1393). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. ترجمة رضا امینی. تهران: بوی کاغذ.
 
References:
Aalizadeh, A. (2006). Doing Research Using the Delphi method. Tehran: Yousef. [In Persian].
Ahmadkhani, M. & Rashidian, D. (2016). Phonological and morphological adaptations in Azerbayjani Turkish loanwords. Language Studies, 7(13), 1-15. [In Persian].
Anvari, H. (2002). Sokhan comprehensive Persian dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
August, D, Carlo M, Dressler, C. & Snow, C. (2008). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 50-57.
Azhand, Y. (1985). Turkish modern literature. Tehran: Amirkabir. [In Persian].
Banta, F. (1981). Teaching German vocabulary: The use of English cognates and common loanwords. Modern Language Journal, 65, 129-136.
Calvet, L. J. (1996). La sociolinguistique. Paris: Press universitaires de France. Translated by Puyandeh, M. J., Tehran: Naghsh-e-Jahan. [In Persian].
Ergin, M. (2007). Türk Dil Bilgisi. Istanbul: Bayrak Basım Yayım Tanıtım.
Ghaffar-Samar, R. (2019). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed). Tehran: Tarbiat Modarres University Press. [In Persian].
Ghandehari, F. (2004). Etymology and knowledge of word formation and its effect on learning and developing English language vocabulary. Foreign Language Research, 16, 143-154. [In Persian].
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd ed). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Jabbari, A. (2020). Farsça-Türkçe sözlük. Ankara: Pelikan Yayɪnlarɪ.
Jafari, F. & Navvabi, A. (2017). Reading and Comprehension of Persian for Non-Persian Language Learners (Intermediate level) (2nd ed). Tehran: Dehkhoda Institute and International Center for Persian Language Teaching. [In Persian].
Jafari, F., Navvabi, A. & Ebrahimi, H. (2017). Reading and Comprehension of Persian for Non-Persian Language Learners (Basic level) (2nd ed). Tehran: Dehkhoda Institute and International Center for Persian Language Teaching. [In Persian].
Kanar, M. (2012). Farsça-Türkçe sözlük. Istanbul: Say Yayınları.
Meara, P. (1996). The classical research in L2 vocabulary acquisition. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Words Words Words: The Translator and the Language Learner (p. 27-40). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Meshkinfam, M., Ezadi, E., Hashemian, L. & Khatooni, S. (2021). Teaching Persian words based on the effect of using the first language on teaching the second language. Persian language teaching studies, 6(11), 11-36. [In Persian].
Meshkatoddini, M. (2002). The origin and development of linguistic theories. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University. [In Persian].
Modarresi, Yahya. (1989). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Tehran: IHCS. [In Persian].
Nation, I. S. P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge. Translated by Mirdehghan et al., Tehran: Khamush. [In Persian].
Nazari, A. & Asadollahpoor Araghi, Z. (2015). Linguistic Interference and Semantic Change of Arabic Loanwords and its Effect on Arabic Translation. Translation Researches in the Arabic Language and Literature, 5(13), 85-106. [In Persian].
Payne, T. E. (2006). Exploring language structure. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pourmohammadi Amlashi, N. & Ghafourian, M. (2020a). The importance and role of shared language items and linguistic links in teaching Persian to non-Persian speakers: Case study of Hindi and Urdu language learners. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 9(2), 307-329. [In Persian].
Pourmohammadi Amlashi, N. & Ghafourian, M. (2020b). Comparative study of the interaction of words and common roots in Persian, Hindi and Urdu (The cultural-historical and linguistic relationship). The Subcontinent (Special issue of The Letter of Academy), 11, 167-196. [In Persian].
Rasoulinejad, M., Mir-ahmadi, S. & Keshavarz, H. (2022). The effect of positive language interference on learning Arabic. Arabic Language and Literature Education, 3(4), 187-202. [In Persian].
Rezai Baghbidi, H. (2009). History of Iranian languages. Tehran: Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopaedia. [In Persian].
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2005). Approaches and Methods in Language teaching. Translated by A. Bahrami, Tehran: Rahnama. [In Persian].
Ringbom, H. (2007). The importance of cross-linguistic similarities. The Language Teacher, 31(9), 3-5.
Sotoudehnama, E. & Solgi, F. (2017). Second language vocabulary learning: Etymology or synonymy?. Zabanpazhuhi (Journal of Language Research), 9(23), 105-120. [In Persian].
Steinberg, D. D. (2012). An Introduction to psycholiguistics. Translated by Gholfam, A. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian].
Taheri, H. & Ghafurian, M. (2022). The role of Arabic usage and words in Persian language teaching (Case study of Persian language learners of Arabic language). Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 11(1), 3-28. [In Persian].
Wardhaugh, R. (2013). An introduction to Sociolinguistics. Translated by R. Amini. Tehran: Buy-e-kaghaz.
Zare’ Shahmarasi, P. (2012). A Dictionary of Turkish Borrowed Words in Persian and Arabic. Tehran: Tak-deraxt. [In Persian].