Lifelong Learning: Teaching Turkish Students about Languages in Contact (Romanian and Turkish) within Erasmus

Full text

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 ( 2013 ) 224 – 229

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access underCC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.044

2

nd

World Conference on Educational Technology Researches – WCETR2012

Lifelong Learning: Teaching Turkish students about Languages in

Contact (Romanian and Turkish) within Erasmus

Georgeta Raţă

Banat University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Calea Aradului 119, Timişoara - 300645, Romania Tel.: 0040721810009, E-mil address: georgeta_rata@yahoo.com

Abstract

The Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission includes a sub-programme for higher education funding projects at different levels of education and training, among which Erasmus. The purpose of the study is to show how Erasmus funds cooperation between higher education institutions across Europe, supporting professors to teach abroad and to receive training. The main source of evidence is our own successful experience as a teacher of English within the Erasmus staff mobility for teaching in Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (Turkey). Staff exchanges have beneficial effects both for the people participating in the programme and for the home and host institutions.

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey

Keywords: Lifelong Learning Programme, Multicultural Education, Turkish, Romanian;

Corresponding Author: Georgeta Rata, Tel:+32 8743637 Email: georgeta_rata@yahoo.com

1.Introduction

The Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission meant to create education and training opportunities for all includes a sub-programme for higher education funding projects at different levels of education and training, among which Erasmus. The purpose of the study is to show how Erasmus funds cooperation between higher education institutions across Europe, supporting professors to teach abroad and to receive training and, most importantly, promoting multiculturalism. The main source of evidence is our own successful experience as a teacher of English within the Erasmus staff mobility for teaching in Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.

(2)

22.Structure of the Course

The course was structured as follows: 2.1. History and Distribution

Research shows that Turkish borrowings have come into Romanian from two main sources: from old Turkisk and Tatar populations settled in areas that are nowadays part of Romanian territory (particularly Pechenegs and Cumans, 9th-13th centuries and 11th-13th centuries, respectively): Pecheneg linguistic traces can be identified in

Romanian toponyms such as Peceneaga (Tulcea County), Pecineagul (in the Făgăraş Mountains), or the village of

Pecinişca (Caraş-Severin County); Cuman linguistic traces can be identified in Romanian: anthroponyms such as

Aslan, Balaban, Cara, etc.; toponyms such as Caracal (Olt County) (< Tk kara kala ‘castrum nigrum’), Comana

(Giurgiu County), Comanca (Vâlcea County), Comăna de Jos and Comăna de Sus (Braşov County), Comăneşti

(Arad, Bacău, Galaţi, Harghita, Mehedinţi, Olt, Suceava Counties), Comăniţa (Olt County), Comăniţa (Dolj County), Iaşi (Iaşi County) (< Tk yassi ‘archer’), Teleorman (< Tk teli orman ‘mad forest’, i.e. ‘thick forest’), etc.; other words: aslam ‘interest’, baltag ‘axe, (small) hatchet; (Obsolescent) double bit felling axe; club; axe cut’,

capcană ‘snare, trap; (Figurative) trap’, catâr ‘mule (Equus mulus L.); (Figurative) mule’, etc. from Ottoman Turks (14th to 19th centuries), in two distinct periods: between the 15th and the 17th centuries, popular words that are

still widespread and that are well adapted to the Romanian language; between the 17th and the 18th centuries (the

Phanariot period), words no longer used and that have acquired, in Romanian, ironic / pejorative meanings. 2.2. Linguistic Borrowings

There are a few Turkish vowels, consonants, and sound groups that are not common to the Romanian language. They have been replaced by other sounds to make them easy to pronounce. Thus: Turkish vowel ö was, in most cases, replaced by Romanian vowel o: Tk dövlek > R dovleac, etc.; Romanian diphthong io: Tk karagöz > R caraghios, etc.; Turkish vowel ü was, in most cases, replaced by Romanian vowel u: Tk bülük > R buluc, etc.; Romanian vowel i: Tk güveç > R ghiveci, etc.; old Turkish consonant ğ was, in most cases, replaced by Romanian consonant g (in earlier periods): Tk ağa > R agă, etc.; Ø (in recent periods): Tk bağlama > R balama, etc.; Turkish sound groups çι, cι, şι, yι have been, in most cases, replaced by Romanian sound groups ci (Tk balçιk > R balcic), gi (Tk arpacιk > R arpagic), şi (Tk aşιk > R arşic), and (ĭ)i (Tk bayιr > R bair); Turkish long vowels â, î, û have been reduced to simple vowels: Tk sâde > R sadea; Turkish consonant groups cc, çc, çç, dc, şc, şç, tc, tç have been simplified: Tk papuçcι > R papugiu; Turkish double consonants have been reduced to simple consonants: Tk cübbe > R giubea, etc.

At morphological level, there have been important lexical impacts due, on the one hand, to the formal aspect of the ending of the Turkish etymon and, on the other hand, to the natural gender of the referent: Turkish borrowings such as acadea – acadele, cafea – cafele, duşumea – duşumele, etc. have strengthened the range of the noun flexional type inherited from Latin that have disappeared in Istro-Romanian, and resulted in a new contextual pattern: balama – balamale, etc.; Turkish etymons in -ι, -i, -u, -ü have been included among: masculine or neuter Romanian nouns in -iu (anteriu, etc.) and -îu (paralâu, etc.); feminine Romanian nouns in -ie (cutie, etc.) or -îie (ceacâie, etc.); adjectives in -iu / -ie (ageamiu – ageamie, etc.); Turkish derivatives with -cι, -ci, -cu, -cü / -çι, çi, -çu, -çü have been turned into Romanian words in -ciu / -giu (bocciu, etc.); Turkish derivatives with -lι, -li, -lu, -lü have been turned into Romanian words in -liu / -lâu – -lie / -lâie (chefliu – cheflie, etc.); Turkish etymons in -a / -e have been turned into Romanian nouns in -ă: Tk çorba > R ciorbă, etc. ; Turkish stress has changed in some Romanian nouns: Tk dolamá > R dulámă, etc.

(3)

Romanian has borrowed from Turkish a few conjunctions no longer in use (ama, hem, ia), a preposition (başca), and an adverb (ioc). It has also borrowed: phrases that it has turned into simple words or into compounds: Tk kel baş > R chelbaş ‘bald’, etc.; Turkish word order has been changed: Tk valide sultan > R sultană valide, etc.; Turkish phrases have been condensed: Tk battal [koç] > R batal, etc.; Turkish phrases have been calqued (translated word for word): Tk kιrmιzι biber > R piper roşu, etc.; Turkish phrases have been improperly analysed: Tk ölefe > R olefea > R leafă / lefea, etc.

Romanian words of Turkish originare mainly nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and interjections: Nouns (a noun is ‘the name of a person, place, or “thing”’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]): acaret ‘annex, extension, outhouse, dependences; building, construction; agricultural implements’, babalâc ‘(Pejorative) dry old stick, old crock, old dug-out; mill’s axis’, cafea ‘a plant (Coffea Arabica); coffee beans; coffee (drink)’, etc.; Adjectives (an adjective is ‘a major part of speech, traditionally defined as a describing word or a word that tells us something about a noun’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]): bondoc ‘dumpy, short-and-stout, square built, stumpy, thickset’, caraghios ‘foolish, ridiculous; comical, funny; funny, odd, queer, singular’, hain ‘malicious, wicked; ill-inclined, malevolent; cruel, merciless, pitiless; averse, hostile, ill-disposed, vicious; perfidious; (Obsolescent) traitor’, etc.; Adverbs (an adverb

is ‘a major part of speech, a word that usually modifies or qualifies a verb (e.g., he spoke quietly), an adjective (e.g., she is very pretty), or another adverb (e.g., he spoke very quietly)’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]): abitir ‘better, more, quicker’, barem / barim ‘at least’, ioc ‘not an atom, not a jot / whit; nothing’, tiptil ‘gently, slowly, stealthily’, etc.;

Interjections (an interjection is ‘a minor word-class whose members are outside normal clause structure, having no syntactical connection with other words, and generally having emotive meanings’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]):

aferim ‘Bravo! That’s well! Well done!’, bre ‘Heigh! I say!; Fellow! Folks! Listen! Look here! Man!’, halal

‘bravo’, etc. No Turkish verb has been borrowed, maybe because the ending of Turkish infinitives (-mak and -mek) are not susceptible of being adapted in Romanian (where infinitives end in -a, -ea, -e, -i/-î). In exchange, there are lots of Romanian verbs derived from Turkish nouns and adjectives. Lexical borrowings can be grouped into the following lexical or semantic fields: animals, clothing, commerce and industry, cooking, house and buildings, materials, military craft, plants, politics, tools, trades, and others.

2.3. Routes of Transmission

Most of the Romanian words of Turkish origin are have a single etymon, but there are also cases of multiple etymons: Bulgarian, Turkish: pârjoală, salam; Bulgarian, Hungarian, Turkish: hambar; Bulgarian, Modern Greek, Turkish: naramz / naramză; Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Turkish: barem / barim, chirie, and cergă; Bulgarian, Turkish: arpagic, iahnie, odaie, samsar, testemel, zăbun, and zarzavat; Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Russian, Turkish:

suman; French, Modern Greek, Turkish: coffee; Hungarian, Turkish: papuc and tărâm; Modern Greek, Turkish:

amanet, călăuză, cataif, catifea, curmală, farfurie, fistic, maimuţă, marafet, nufăr, paceaură, palavră, pastramă,

peltea, pilaf, and tutun; Russian, Turkish: avan, cazac, and ceai; Serbo-Croatian, Turkish: bostan; Tatar, Turkish, Ukrainian: arcan; Ukrainian, Turkish: harbuz. In a single case, there is indication of a borrowing coming from two possible sources – Bg zurla, Sb-Cr surla – via Turkish: surlă.

2.4. Usage Restrictions

As in any other language, there are established and customary ways of using language. Questions of usage are complicated by the fact that accepted usage may vary from one speech community to another, according to different regional or social varieties, and such factors as who is writing or speaking to whomabout what. Many dictionaries employ usage labels to indicate whether particular senses, words, or phrases are formal or informal, British or American, dialectal, dated, slang, offensive, euphemistic, etc. As far as Romanian words of Turkish origin are concerned, usage restrictions are as shown below. A domain or field, in semantics, is defined as ‘a range or system of referents that have some aspect of meaning in common’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]. Turkish borrowings into Romanian are circumscribed to a single domain / fieldhistory. Are considered Historical, because used in the past and no longer in use nowadays, Turkish borrowings such as: agă ‘ag(h)a, police prefect’,

(4)

coffee taxation’, etc. As far as the range of Turkish borrowings is concerned, Romanian language dictionaries mention only those terms that have a regional use limitation. Are considered Regional, i.e. characteristic of a form of Romanian that is distributed in identifiable geographic areas (and that differs in pronunciation or vocabulary from standard Romanian): berechet ‘in abundance, galore, plentifully’, cazma ‘pickaxe’, dughengiu ‘grocer’, etc. From the point of view of the register (i.e., of the variety of language used in a specific social setting), Turkish borrowings can be ranged among colloquial and slang. Is colloquial (characteristic / appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal; conversational): abitir ‘better, more, quicker’,

bairam ‘feast’, cafegiu ‘coffee lover’, etc. Are slang (i.e., a kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech, made up typically of short-lived coinages and figures of speech that are deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humour, irreverence, or other effect): bidibiu / bididiu / bidiviu ‘lad, youth’, saca

‘rental carriage’, and sictir ‘Piss off!’.

Style (i.e., the way in which something is said or expressed) is the best represented of all Turkish borrowings usage restrictions. They can be grouped as follows: Derogatory (i.e., tending to detract or diminish): dugheană ‘small, shabby shop’, ghiaur ‘non-Muslim’, musafirlâc ‘visit’, etc. Ironical (i.e., characterised by or constituting irony): bostan ‘human head’; Pejorative (i.e., disparaging): babalâc ‘dry old stick, old crock, old dug-out’,

chilipirgiu ‘hunter for bargains, opportunist’, farafastâc ‘trifle’, etc.; Popular (i.e., prevalent among the people in general): abitir ‘better, more, quicker’, başca ‘in addition, into the bargain, separately’, calup ‘mould’, etc.

Currency (i.e., the state of being current; up-to-datedness) is limited to old and rare Turkish borrowings:

Obsolescent (i.e., being in the process of passing out of use or usefulness): adet ‘tax’, badana / bidinea ‘painter’s brush; mason’s brush’, cafegiu ‘coffee-house keeper; person charged with preparing coffee’, etc. Rare (i.e., infrequently occurring, uncommon): chepeng ‘(window) shutter’, fotă ‘kind of peasant’s skirt; (Rare) waiter’s apron’, halvagiu ‘halvah maker’, moft ‘trick’, etc.

2.5. Re-used Linguistic Material

The most important contributions of the Turkish language to the Romanian word-formation system are a few

suffixes (‘affixes added at the end of roots’ – [Chalker & Weiner 1994]) and a combining form (‘a bound form (or bound morpheme) used in conjunction with another linguistic element in the formation of a word’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994]), -baş- (no longer in use nowadays): they entered the Romanian language as loanwords and were later detached and re-used to make up new words. The most productive Turkish suffixes borrowed into Romanian are -ciu (< Tk -či) and -giu (< Tk -ği), -íu (< Tk -i), -liu (< Tk -lι, -li, -lu, -lü), and -lâc / -lic (< Tk -lyk): On the other hand, the processes of word formation below resulted in about 2,000 Romanian words of Turkish origin. Clipping

(‘the formation of a new word by shortening an existing one’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in exam(ination)): R ciulă < R ciulama (< Tk çullama), R salamalec < R salamaleikum (< Tk selâmaleyküm), R şuşă < R şuşanea (< Tk şişane), etc. Composition or compounding (‘the process of forming compound words by joining at least two independent bases together’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in bookcase): chindia-mare, ciorap-pantalon, geantă-diplomat, etc.;

auto-macara, biblioraft, linge-tipsia, etc. Contamination (‘the process by which two more or less synonymous linguistic forms are blended by accident or through confusion so as to produce a new form’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in insinuendo < insinuation + innuendo): R şişcar < R şiş(< Tk şiş) + R brişcar (< Hung bicska). Conversion or

functional shift or reclassification (‘the process by which a word belonging to one word class gets used as part of another word class without the addition of an affix’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in water (n.) → to water (v.)): Turkish nouns turned into Romanian adjectives: bocciu, caraghios, duşman, etc. Derivation (‘the process of forming a new word by adding an affix to an existing word’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in sub-editor): the productivity of Romanian words of Turkish origin is proven by their large number of noun, adjectival, verbal, and adverbial derivatives based on nominal and adjectival roots. Folk etymology or popular etymology (‘a popular modification of the form of a word in order to render it apparently significant’ [Chalker & Weiner 1994], as in sparrow grass for asparagus): R furtun < Tk hortum (after R furtună ‘storm’), etc. Intermediary processes or related processes are, in fact, combinations of the processes described above. Here is an example of combination between contamination and folk etymology: R palmac (< Tk parmak) < palmă + -ac.

(5)

6.Conclusions

We consider it a successful experience because it encouraged our two higher education institutions to broaden and enrich the range and content of courses they offer (a course on two languages in contact for over 500 years – Romanian and Turkish); it allowed Turkish students who do not have the possibility to participate in a mobility scheme to benefit from the knowledge and expertise of academic staff from a higher education institution of another country; it promoted exchange of expertise and experience on pedagogical methods; it created a strong link between our two higher education institutions; it motivated students and staff to become mobile and to assist them in preparing a mobility period. Staff exchanges have beneficial effects (enriching professors’ lives in the academic and professional fields; improving intercultural skills, self-reliance and self-awareness; giving a better sense of what it means to be a European citizen) both for the people participating in the programme and for the home and host institutions. And, most important of all, it promoted multiculturalism through multicultural education.

R

References

Academia Română, Instititul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan”. (2009). Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române (ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugită). Bucureşti: Editura Univers Enciclopedic Gold.

Academia Română, Instititul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan”. (2002). Micul dicţionar academic. Bucureşti: Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Academia Română, Instititul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti”. (2005). Dicționar ortografic, ortoepic și morfologic al limbii române,

ediția a II-a revăzută şi adăugită. Bucureşti: Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Brown, K. (2005). Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier Science.

Bulgăr, Gh. &Constantinescu-Dobridor, Gh. (2002). Dicţionar de arhaisme şi regionalisme. Bucureşti: Editura Saeculum Vizual. Cazan, Olga. (2009). Evoluţia stilului juridico-administrativ în limba română (perioada 1780-1860). Uniterm 7: 10-20.

Cenac, Oana Magdalena. (2009). Vechi şi nou în vocabularul limbii române actuale. Despre elementele de origine neogreacă şi turcă. În Luminiţa Botoşineanu, Elena Dănilă, Cecilia Holban & Ofelia Ichim (Coord.), Distorsionări în comunicarea lingvistică, literarăşi etnofolclorică

româneascăşi contextul european. Iaşi: Alfa. 59-64.

Chalker, Sylvia & Weiner, E. (1994). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. London – New York – Sydney – Toronto: BCA. Ciorănescu, A. (1958-1966). Dicţionarul etimologic român. Tenerife: Universidad de la Laguna.

Creţa, Zorela, Mareş, Lucreţia, Ştefănescu-Goangă, Zizi, Şuteu, Flora & Şuteu, V. (1998). Dicționar al limbii române actuale (ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugită). Bucureşti: Editura Curtea Veche.

Dicţionar ortografic al limbii române. (2002). Bucureşti: Editura Litera.

Dimitrescu, Florica. (1997). Dicţionar de cuvinte recente. Bucureşti: Editura Logos.

Enache, C. (2010). Lexicul de origine turcăşi greacă în literature română modernăşi contemporană. Teză de doctorat. Universitatea “Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi.

Friedman, V. A. (1994). Turkisms in a Comparative Balkan Context. In Titos Jochalas (Ed.), Septième Congrès International d’Études du Sud-Est Européen. Thessalonique, 29 août – 4 septembre 1994. Rapports: 521-543.

Gemil, T. & Pienaru, N. (Coord.). (2010). Moştenirea istorică a tătarilor, I. Bucureşti: 9-22. Gal, A. M. (2003). Dicţionar gastronomic explicativ. Bucureşti: Editura Gemma Print.

Gemil, T. Peste un mileniu de existenţă a populaţiei turco-tătare pe teritoriul României. Online: http://www.tatar.ro/publicatii/Tahsin%20Gemil/PESTE%20UN%20MILENIU.pdf.

Görlach, M. (Ed.). (2005). A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in Sixteen European Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Litera Internaţional. (2002). Noul dicţionar explicativ al limbii române. Bucureşti: Editura Litera Internaţional. Marcu, F. (2002). Marele dicţionar de neologisme. Bucureşti: Editura Saeculum.

Marcu, F. & Maneca, C. (1986). Dicţionar de neologisme. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei. Mocanu, I. (2007). Etimologii. Noi, Dacii 3: 1-7.

Mureşan, Mihaela. (2008). Tendinţe lingvistice în presa scrisă contemporană. Jurnalism şi comunicare III (4): 45-51. Muşina, A. (2003). Ţara turcită. România literară 19.

Parker, P. M. (Ed.). (2008). Webster’s Turkish-English Thesaurus Dictionary. San Diego, CA: ICON.

Popa, M. D., Stănciulescu, A., Florin-Matei, G., Tudor, Anicuţa, Zgăvărdici, Carmen & Chiriacescu, Rodica. (1993-2009). Dicţionar enciclopedic. Bucureşti: Editura enciclopedică.

Quataert, D. (2000). The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sankoff, Gillian. (2001). Linguistic Outcomes of Language Contact. In P. Trudgill, J. Chambers & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 638-668.

Seche, M. & Seche, Luiza. (2002). Dicţionar de antonime. Bucureşti: Editura Litera Internaţional. Seche, M. & Seche, Luiza. (2002). Dicţionar de sinonime. Bucureşti: Editura Litera Internaţional.

(6)

Suciu, E. (2011). 101 cuvinte de origine turcă. Bucureşti: Editura Humanitas.

Todi, Aida. (2005). Aspecte ale relaţiilor interculturale româno-turce: influenţa limbii turce asupra limbii române. Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Philologica, 6, Tom 3: 175-179.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2000). Manele. România literară 42.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2000). Gheliruri, chilipiruri şi locmale. România literară 49. Zafiu, Rodica. (2001). “Românache”, “străinache”. România literară 10. Zafiu, Rodica. (2002). Şpaga. România literară 30.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2003). Purismul şi turcismele. România literară 2.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2003). De la ‘u’ la ‘uzuş’ prin ‘urcelnic’. România literară 3. Zafiu, Rodica. (2003). Între devlet şi europei. România literară 14.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2004). Lexicul petrecerii. România literară 14. Zafiu, Rodica. (2004). Ironii. România literară 33.

Zafiu, Rodica. (2005). De belea… România literară 5. Zafiu, Rodica. (2009). Cafting. România literară 29. Zafiu, Rodica. (2011). Beizadea. România literară 31.

Figure

Updating...