No abstract

This paper was checked for plagiarism using iThenticate during the preview process and before publication. / Bu çalışma ön inceleme sürecinde ve yayımlanmadan önce iThenticate yazılımı ile taranmıştır.

Using the literature on transnationalism, this article explores overseas-trained Turkish scholars’ experiences and whether these have had any effects on their identity construction/transformation, professional and personal lives after returning home. This exploration is informed by quantitative and qualitative data collected from Turkish scholars who completed their MA and/or PhD degrees in English-speaking countries and are now working in universities as academics. Besides highlighting the differences between educational values and practices in Turkey and Western countries, this article also examines how these differences influence professional trajectories and negotiations of identities among overseas-trained academics, with follow-up references to the author’s autoethnography as a Western-trained scholar to spotlight the commonalities in the lived experiences of returnees. The results highlight the dynamic nature of overseas experiences and returning home with new competences, skills and a broadened worldview which results in returnees’ distinguishing themselves from those around them in their personal and professional transactions.

Based on the empirical data of my PhD research, this paper analyses the perceptions of 351 undergraduate students enrolled at English-medium universities towards English in terms of the language ideology framework. The students were purposively sampled from three programs at three Turkish universities. The data were drawn from student opinion surveys and semi-structured interviews. The findings paint a blurry picture, with a strong tendency among most students to view their English use as having the characteristics of dominant native varieties of English (American English & British English), and with a high percentage of students’ acceptance of the distinctiveness of their English without referring to any standard variety. The findings also show that many students’ orientations to English are formed by two dominant language ideologies: standard English ideology and native speaker English ideology. It was also found that a large number of students did not strictly stick to either of these ideologies, particularly in their orientation to spoken English, due, as argued in the main body, to their experiences on language use that have made them aware of the demographics of diverse English users and of the diverse ways of using English.

In recent years, many Turkish universities, particularly the foundation universities in the private sector, have adopted English either in part or in full, as the language of instruction. In practice, this has meant that English should be the only working language of instruction in all academic activities, ranging from lectures, seminars, presentations to thesis defenses. However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the ideals of policymakers are not always in tune with the actuals of the policy implementers (Jenkins, 2014; Karakaş, 2016a). In the Turkish higher education, there is evidence that lecturers and students often breach the English-only policy by using a mixed-version of Turkish and English, which is widely known as Tarzanca (Tarzanish in English) in Turkey (Collins, 2010; Karakaş, 2016b). This critical review seeks to explore the phenomenon of Tarzanish in general and its use in English-medium instruction (EMI) universities in particular. While doing so, it is also aimed to find answers to the following questions: (1) How is Tarzanish conceptualized and described in the dictionaries, literature, online sources (e. g. blogs, discussion forums, etc.) and by scholars? (2) What are its descriptive characteristics in terms of morphology, syntax, and lexis? (3) Why do EMI people (lecturers and students) resort to it? Moreover, (4) what can be done to resolve the issue of Tarzanish in EMI universities? Drawing on the answers to these questions, the paper suggests that the notion of Tarzanish means different things to different people, lay people and EMI people resort to it for different purposes, and its use by lay people and EMI people show divergences due to some variables such as the level of language proficiency and the domains of language use (e.g., tourism, business, and higher education). Finally, some suggestions have been offered for the solution of the issue of Tarzanish in EMI universities.

No abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and report on the spread of the English language across Turkey, and how people from different camps in the country show reactions to its current place. In this sense, with an eye to projecting how a welcoming atmosphere has chronologically occurred in Turkey for English to gain importance as an inescapable phenomenon, brief information on the country profile is given to the reader before the main discussion. To achieve the purpose of the paper, the discussions within the main body of the paper are grounded on the conceptual framework of language spread and its two subdivisions: planned and unplanned language spread. The current place of English in Turkey is described based on four main domains and their sub-domains. These domains include the presence of English in scientific research and communication, in the workplace, in cultural products and the media and finally in education. For each specific domain, a small amount of space is allowed to cite people's reactions to the omnipresence of English, including both their concerns and positive remarks regarding the issue. The paper concludes that the spread of English in Turkey creates dilemmas among people and for the state, and no easy solution is seen in the immediate future in regard to the expansion of English.

This study aims to identify the problems/difficulties that academics in a Turkish university encounter while using English as a lingua franca. The data were garnered through survey questionnaires filled out by 27 academics based in a Turkish university in the southwest of Turkey. The findings demonstrated that academics dramatically needed and used English in non-native contexts and mainly with non-native speakers of English for various reasons and purposes. Moreover, it was found that participants experienced a large number of misunderstandings and difficulties in the use of English for work-related purposes, and they resented the fact that they had to take English proficiency exams for academic promotion. The results are discussed in relation to those of previous studies of similar scope. The study concludes with suggestions posed for the improvement of academics' verbal and academic writing skills and the issue of language proficiency examination policies.Keywords: English as a lingua franca, academic English, Turkish academics, the academic world. ÖzetBu çalışma bir Türk üniversitesindeki akademisyenlerin 'anadili farklı insanların konuştuğu ortak dil' (lingua franka) olarak İngilizce'yi kullanma durumlarını ve bu dili kullanırken karşılaştıkları zorlukları belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada veriler Türkiye'nin güney batısında yer alan bir Türk üniversitesindeki akademisyenler (n=27) tarafından doldurulan anketler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar katılımcıların çeşitli sebep ve amaçlarla İngilizce'yi anadili İngilizce olan ülkeler dışında ve anadili İngilizce olmayan kişilerle iletişim kurmak amacı ile kullandıklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, bulgular katılımcıların İngilizce'yi mesleki amaçlar için kullanırken birçok yanlış anlama ve zorlukla karşılaştıklarını ve terfi edebilmek için yeterlilik sınavlarına zorlanmalarından şikâyet ettiklerini de ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular daha önceki çalışmalar ile karşılıklı olarak tartışılmaktadır ve araştırma akademisyenlerin sözel beceriler ve akademik yazma gibi dil yeterliliklerinin geliştirilmesine ve dil yeterlilik sınav politikası gibi sorunlara yönelik öneriler ile son bulmaktadır. IntroductionNowadays, we frequently hear or read the motto 'the world is developing into a global village'. Nevertheless, people in this village, do not possess a common language but bring along a variety of languages. Then, the question that how these people communicate with each other arises ipso facto. At this point, English emerges as a global lingua franca by serving as a vital and common means of communication for a large number of people all around the world (Coury, 2001). In a similar vein, Breton (2000) holds the view that "The English language now seems set to have a monopoly as the worldwide medium of communication". As maintained by Crystal (1997) English has hitherto left its marks on each continent and is predominantly spoken over 60 countries either dominantly or officially. This situation leads to increased opportunity and possibility of non-n...