Advertisement

The Determination of the Turkish Perception of Graduate Students Through the Method of Metaphor

  • Ercan Baysülen
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

In this study, the perception of the graduate students towards Turkish was tried to be determined through metaphor. This study was conducted using the phenomenology pattern within the framework of qualitative research approach. The study group consisted of 49 graduate students studying in different departments of various universities during the 2017–2018 academic year. Metaphors related to Turkish were analysed by content analysis technique within the qualitative research approach. The metaphors created by the participants were analysed in terms of their common features, and they were collected in seven categories as “being indispensable, valuable, rooted, enlightening, unifying, reliable and unique” in the positive perception category for Turkish. When the findings of the study were examined, it was seen that participants had a positive perception (97.9%) on the Turkish side, and very few (21%) perceived it as difficult.

Keywords

Turkish Perception of Turkish Metaphors Graduate students 

References

  1. Akarsu, B. (1975). Felsefe Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
  2. Aksan, D. (1998). Her Yönüyle Dil. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
  3. Arnett, R. C. (1999). Metaphorical guidance: Administration as building and renovation. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Göçer, A. (2013). Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının ‘Kültür Dil İlişkisi’ne Yönelik Metaforik Algıları. International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(9), 253–263.Google Scholar
  5. Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ELS teaching and learning. Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Inbar, D. (1996). The free educational prison: Metaphors and images. Educational Research, 38(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Karaağaç, G. (1999). Dil, Tarih ve İnsan. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.Google Scholar
  8. Karahisar, T. (2013). Dijital Nesil, Dijital İletişim ve Dijitalleşen (!) Türkçe. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 4(12), 71–83.Google Scholar
  9. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2005). In G. Y. Demir (Ed.), Metaforlar Hayat, Anlam ve Dil. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.Google Scholar
  10. Mete, F., & Ayrancı, B. B. (2016). Dil ve Edebiyata İlişkin Algıların Metaforlar Yoluyla İncelenmesi. Dede Korkut, Uluslararası Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11, 53–64.Google Scholar
  11. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis : An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Calif: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Morgan, G. (1998). In G. Bulut (Ed.), Yönetim ve örgüt teorilerinde metafor. İstanbul: BZD Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  13. Sevim, O., Veyis, F., & Kınay, N. (2012). Öğretmen Adaylarının Türkçeyle İlgili Algılarının Metaforlar Yoluyla Belirlenmesi: Atatürk Üniversitesi Örneği. Uluslararası Cumhuriyet Eğitim Dergisi., 1(1), 40–44.Google Scholar
  14. Vossler, K. (2014). The Spirit of language in civilization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Yalçın, Ş. (1997). Doğru Türkçe. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.Google Scholar
  16. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ercan Baysülen
    • 1
  1. 1.Ministry of National EducationAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations