YABANCI DİL OLARAK TÜRKÇE DERS KİTAPLARININ KÜLTÜREL İÇERİĞİNİN ÜÇ ÇEVRE MODELİNE GÖRE ÇÖZÜMLENMESİ

Although the target language culture (the Turkish culture) was adequately represented, the cultures of the other Turkic groups were almost ignored and the cultures of different countries learning Turkish as a foreign language were the most varied and densely-populated. However, among the countries of the expanding circle, the Anglo-American culture, rather than the cultures of the neighbouring countries, was the dominant culture. When the distribution of the cultural elements was evaluated with the percentages of foreign students from the outer and expanding circles, it was revealed that the Turkish as a foreign language coursebooks did not take into consideration the cultural backgrounds of the audience and choose the culture-loaded texts systematically, either. Introduction In foreign language education, coursebooks are the primary vehicles for transferring cultural information in textual and visual forms. Defining the purpose of learning an international language as transferring your own culture to others, McKay (2003) objects to limiting the cultural content presented in the instructional material to the native speakers’ culture and argues that elements of the students’ local culture should also be included. This brings about the problem of representing which cultures and to what extent in foreign language teaching materials. However, when the cultural analyses of Turkish as a foreign language sets were studied, it was revealed that the researchers: (i) focused more on the achievement of transferring elements of the Turkish culture, (ii) categorized them according to similar theoretical frameworks, (iii) were merely contented with determining the deficiencies in the transfer of the target values, (iv) had no suggestions for the presentation of the other cultures (Demir and Açık, 2011; Tüm and Sarkmaz, 2012; Yılmaz, 2012; Okur and Keskin, 2013). In fact, with over 125 million speakers, Turkish and the other 20 Turkic languages dominate a vast geography including Turkey, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Northwestern Europe (Johanson, 2009). It is evident that such varied speakers will need to express their own culture and understand other cultures, while communicating in Turkish with the Turks and other nonnative users of Turkish like themselves. For this reason, the aim of this study is to categorize the cultural elements in Turkish as a foreign language coursebooks, according to Kachru’s three circles model (1985), and within the sample of Yeni Hitit 3 (2012) as well as documenting the representations of other countries in the teaching of cultural content and making recommendations for creating cross-cultural awareness. The Three Circles Model Creating its own varieties as “World Englishes”, English has spread into three concentric circles: (1) the inner circle: the traditional, historical, cultural, linguistic centers speaking English as a native language (the UK and USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand); (2) the outer circle: the ex-colonies using English as an additional, second or important language in internal affairs like government, education, law (India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Singapore); (3) the expanding circle: the other countries without a colonial past, speaking English as a foreign language, or using it as an international communication vehicle (China, Europe, Japan, Korea, the Middle East) (Jenkins, 2003; Kachru and Smith, 2008; Schneider, 2010). Using Kachru’s three circles model (1985) in the Turkish as a foreign language context, the inner circle includes Turkey; the outer circle consists of the Turkic groups adopting Turkish as a second language besides the other Turkic languages, especially with its institutionalized use in the educational field, and the expanding circle concerns the ones except these, the majority of which are neighbouring countries. Methodology The corpus of this study is the third component of TOMER’s Yeni Hitit (2012) set, commonly used in Turkish as a foreign language courses. In the study, document analysis was chosen as the qualitative data collection method, and in the chapter-based analysis, the names and adjectives for nations and countries (Turkey, Turkish) as well as alternative words denoting different nations, such as the names of products, cities or geographical regions (İstanbul, hünkâr beğendi) were determined as the analytical unit (Yamanaka, 2006). For the analysis of 45 reading texts in the coursebook, theme was determined as the unit of analysis. The qualitative data were quantified through the calculations of frequencies and percentages, and also tabulated with examples. Findings and Discussion According to Table 1, the culture of the target language (43%) was presented sufficiently in Turkish as a foreign language coursebook, while the cultures of the Turkic groups in the outer circle (1%) were rare, and the cultures of the expanding circle (%56) had the greatest variety and density. Similarly, in Yamanaka’s (2006) study, where 19 different local (Japanese) coursebooks of English, were examined, the expanding circle indicated the highest level of lexical representation (56%, 60%), on both educational levels, whereas the inner circle comes in second (38%, 30%) and the outer circle again has the lowest level of representation (6%, 10%). The results of the thematic analyses in Table 2 showed that the themes of the inner circle like the Turkish language and architecture along with the geographical attractions in Turkey were presented in 9%, and the outer circle was only mentioned in the text, entitled “Beyaz Gemi” by Cengiz Aytmatov (2%), whereas popular figures of the Anglo-American culture (29%) were shown predominantly (Kurt et al., 2012). In line with Tüm and Sarkmaz’s (2012) results, it was discovered that universal themes were the most frequent, followed by topics of the expanding circle, whereas the multicultural topics were the least mentioned. According to Figure 1, in the 2012-2013 academic year, 43% of the foreign students coming to Turkey were from the outer circle, and 57% were from the expanding circle, and as a result, there is an inverse proportion between the lexical representation of the outer circle and its student mass. As seen in Table 3, it is concerning that the cultural elements of the countries like Turkmenistan (47%) and Azerbaijan (38%), with the greatest number of overseas students, were excluded. Demir and Açık (2011) also found that even in Orhun series, specially prepared for the Turkic groups, common values were limited to the traditions and the Turkish culture still dominated. Table 4 showed that some expanding countries, which had relatively lower potentials of students and social interaction between their people due to geographical distance, had a higher lexical representation in the coursebook: for instance, compared to the USA of 61 students represented with 229 words, Afghanistan of 729 students was represented with only two words. On the other hand, our neighbours like Greece, Iran and Iraq displayed a low profile of lexical representation: Greece of 314 students with 17 words, Iran of 408 students with four words, Iraq of 169 students with one word. Yamanaka (2006) also revealed that the cultures of the countries like Singapore, Malaysia and India, with which Japan has close relations, were presented at a low representational level, whereas such close neighbours as China and South Korea in the expanding circle were not adequately represented by citing from their student numbers in Japan. Conclusion As a result of the lexical and thematic analyses in accordance with Kachru’s (1985) three circles model, it was seen that the dominance of the cultural representation in Turkish as foreign language coursebooks belonged to the foreign cultures of the expanding circle and the Turkish culture in the inner circle, while and the cultures of the Turkic groups in the outer circle were unfortunately ignored. Because learning a foreign language cannot be reduced to the learning of vocabulary and grammar rules, the presentation of the target culture along with its uses is essential and indispensible. However, today just knowing the target culture on its own is not sufficient for a foreign language in order to be adopted as a lingua franca by its speakers and to supply effective communication. Each speaker with communicative competence uses the foreign language not only to understand the culture of its native speakers but also to share authentic messages expressing his own culture. Intercultural awareness, having been defined in the Common European Framework of Reference as the ability to understand the similarities and differences between one’s origins and the target society, was listed among the qualities that a good language user needs to have, and involved awareness of the other cultures beside the ones transferred by the native and target languages (Council of Europe, 2001). Resembling intercultural comparisons to building up conceptual bridges between the known and the unknown, Alptekin (1993) stated that conflict can be avoided and the learner’s adaptation to his second language can be facilitated. Similarly, Bölükbaş and Keskin (2010) claimed that through the integration of the cultural elements into foreign language instruction, students can approach different cultures with tolerance and communication problems will eventually disappear. Against the backdrop of the Turkic groups, for whom Turkish is the shared language of communication, the prioritization of the Turkish culture by Yeni Hitit 3 (2012) comes to mean the negligence of a great audience of its readers, nearly amounting to half of all the international students. It is common knowledge that the culture of the inner circle is being emphasized less, while the cultures of the countries in the outer and expanding circles have increased and become diverse, in coursebooks aiming to teach English as an international language (Naji Meidani and Pisghadam, 2013). Consequently, the content of Turkish as a foreign language coursebooks should be composed systematically by taking into consideration the kinds of student groups and the past learning experiences, interests, motivations, and needs of this multicultural community. There doesn’t exist a fair distribution of cultural elements even within the countries of the expanding circle, having the greatest variety and densest representation: the culture of the USA, where English is preferred as a lingua franca, is dominant here, too, in the same way as it is on a global scale. The dominance of the Anglo-American culture in Turkish as a foreign language coursebooks indicates a similarity with the trend in English as foreign language coursebooks. This situation can be related to the economic-political effect of the USA in the region and in the world, as well as its influence as a strategic ally, and also to the fact that in the materials design, the UK and USA, are taken as models, for they are also at the center of the varied operations like language research, teacher education, commercial language schools, along with the administration of international exams and dissemination of instructional materials and teacher resources (Medgyes, 1994). In order to present the cultural diversity in the expanding circle appropriately and to provide these students from such countries with interesting, comprehensible and meaningful content, it is essential to pay all due respects to the cultures of neighbouring countries like Greece, Iran and Iraq as well as those of the countries with which we have strong ties like Germany. Since the expanding circle, willing to learn Turkish for fugitive, educational, economic or touristic reasons, is composed more of Arab, African and the Balkan countries, it is only right to mention their cultures rather than those of the countries, with which we have no solid contact. Considering the cultural heritage of the students in content selection will help learners to develop cross-cultural awareness, whereas Turkish, as a regional lingua franca, will take an active role in increasing the interaction between the Turkic world and the old Ottoman geography.