Content uploaded by Menderes Ünal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Menderes Ünal on Jan 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
P r o c e d i a - S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s 1 1 6 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 0 9 0 – 3 0 9 5
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.713
ScienceDirect
5th World Conference on Educational Sciences -WCES 2013
Self Evaluation of Students’ Language in the Frame of Information
and Communication Technologies
Menderes ÜNAL a *, Mustafa YAGCI b
a Ahi Evran University, Faculty of Education, KIRSEHİR/TURKEY
b Ahi Evran University, Faculty of Education, KIRSEHİR/TURKEY
Abstract
The aim of the study is to identify students’ misuse of language in the frame of information and communication technologies
with their self-evaluation and determine the recommendations to find out ways to overcome misuse of Turkish language. In the
study, among the qualitative research methods the case study was used. University students were asked how they use Turkish
language in mobile phone texting. The language misuses in their texting were analyzed by means of students’ own suggestions. A
self-evaluation form was given to 12 students from Ahi Evran University to determine the misuse types and to get their
suggestions about the correct use of the language. The content analysis of students’ text messages and opinions was employed in
order to examine the misuses through categorized themes.
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Servet Bayram
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Information Communication Technologies, Language, Self-Evaluation
1. Introduction
Language is a means of thought and communication. Communication skill can be defined as the skill of using a
language, which combine individuals and identify national characteristics. People firstly identify and organize their
thoughts and then select proper words, put them into correct order and utter a sentence. This is a mechanical process
which operates automatically and simultaneously (Aksan, 1990). While writing, it enables individuals to think for a
while and find suitable words expressing the idea. However, people misuse words, make useless repetitions and
write irrelevant sentences (Yaman and Erdoğan, 2007). According to Aksoy (1991), language is the most significant
and useful means which emerged from communal life. Moreover, it is a key of collecting and delivering the
knowledge and learning.
Today people are living in a world surrounded by information and communication technologies such as
computers, internet and mobile phones. All around the world, people use mobile phones, which are accessible both
at home and elsewhere including schools. The use of mobile phones has shaped individuals’ way of life, their
interaction and communication with others. Students spend most of their time interacting with each other through
mobile phones. They mainly speak and send messages.
A poll revealed that an overwhelming majority (99%) of 333 Japanese students regularly send and receive emails
via their mobile phones in preference to using their PCs (Thornton and Houser, 2005). In Turkey, Tosun (2012)
* Corresponding name: Menderes UNAL (Assist. Prof. Dr.)” . Tel.: +90-0530-464-3904
E-mail address: menderesunal@gmail.com
Avai lab le on lin e at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
3091
Menderes Ünal and Mustafa Yagci / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 3090 – 3095
found that almost all teacher candidates (99.65% of the girls and 99.13% of the boys) have their own mobile phones.
A high proportion of UK residents who have mobile phones (75% of general population, 90% of young adults) can
handle both voice calls and the display of textual information (Crabtree et al 2003).
People communicate with one another by both face-to-face dialogues and using information communication
technologies. It is a fact that those technologies are becoming such an essential body part of human being that the
young use them at anytime. Whether they communicate in an oral or written way, mobile phones are in the first of
their preference. Many telephone operator systems organize new campaigns and discounts in prices, which
encourage consumers to have more credits leading a rapid increase in the number of mobile phone users who will
send text messages and make voice calls every day (Akkoyunlu and Orhan, 2001).
Many newer phones also have the ability to connect wirelessly to the internet. Students would rather send
messages than speaking on the phone because of some reasons. It is the fact that mobile phones are relatively
inexpensive compared to laptop computers with wireless connection. They also have some functions such as internet
browsers that make mobile phones attractive and present a wide range of possibilities and communication by words
and text messaging increase even further (Naismith et al. 2004).
About 99% of young people use mobile phones for both verbal and written communication quite often in
Turkey. It was found out that students prefer mobile phone short text messages in their written communication
rather than chatting and sending e-mails. Students stated that they use Turkish word abbreviations in chats, e-mails
and short mobile phone texts (Tosun, 2012). Moreover, new vocabulary entered into Turkish after the developments
in communication technologies. Messaging in a short time causes to send texts to more individuals share their
thoughts and chat with each other, which causes some changes in the native language, resulting in the use foreign
vocabulary in their conversations or texts. During the process, people do not pay enough attention to use the
language properly. Therefore, the cases need investigating the cases to find out students’ way of communication and
misuse of the language.
2. Language Misuse
In a language, sounds (letters) come together and build up a word. Words come together and form a sentence. In
a sentence, choosing a word is as important as proper usage. Unconscious, inattentive and misuse of language are as
common as use of informal language among the young, which causes degeneration of the language. The students
prefer using abbreviations to save time and do not write the entire words because they think writing entire word is
more difficult (Tosun, 2012). Language misuse can be classified into four main categories: misuse of a letter, word,
sentence and orthography (Ergin, 1995).
Misuse of a Letter: Using a foreign letter instead of Turkish one and using homonym letters.
Misuse of a Word: Abbreviating the word or omitting vowels and consonants, writing a similar word, preferring
a foreign word and misspelling endings.
Misuse of a Sentence: Using informal language, repeating to indicate stress
Orthographical Misuse: Misusing upper and lower case letters, using double consonants, using diphthongs,
misusing compound or separate words, misusing interrogative suffix “-mi” and misspelling a word or a sentence.
2.1. Purpose
The aim of the study is to identify students’ misuse of language in the frame of mobile phones, which are the
outstanding examples of information and communication technologies and to determine the recommendations which
will help find ways so as to overcome the misuse of Turkish language.
3. Method
The case study among the qualitative research methods was used. A qualitative research involves an interpretive,
naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011; Patton, 1990;
Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2005). Generally, in case studies more than one data collecting technique is employed to
improve the quality of data for the researchers. Some of these techniques are interview, observation, document
analysing, audio or video records (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2005; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007).
3092 Menderes Ünal and Mustafa Yagci / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 3090 – 3095
The data of this research was gathered through a semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher.
The students were asked to write their short messages. Moreover, the suggestions of students on how to overcome
the language misuses were also examined in order to find out the reasons why the students misuse of language.
The text messages of students were analyzed by categorical content analysis after coding the categorized themes.
Codes are the symbols which help to determine, organize and analyze the similar responses (Robson, 2001). Before
analyzing, codes were given to participants. For example, the code for first female student was given FS1, eighth
male student was coded as MS8. In the study, interpretations were also supported by students’ original writings. The
categories (letter, words, sentence, orthography) were identified according to the language categories classified by
Ergin (1995).
3.1. Participants
A self-evaluation form was given to randomly chosen twelve sophomore students from Ahi Evran University to
determine the misuses of Turkish language. Five of the participants were male and seven of them were female.
3.2. Data collection procedure
The students were wanted to write their sent and received text messages in a day on a form that was used as data
collecting tool. The students were asked to write their messages definitely with original words and symbols.
Moreover, the reasons and suggestions of misuses of the language were wanted to be written on the form.
3.3. The limitations
The study is limited by Turkish language, twelve sophomore students from Ahi Evran University,
Kırşehir/Turkey and language categories classified by Ergin (1995).
4. Findings and discussion
The data of the research were analyzed by categorical content analyzing method of qualitative studies. To find
out students’ misuse of the language, their short messages were classified into four categories. The findings are
given with the examples below..
4.1 Misuse of a letter
Table 1: Students’ misuse of letters
MS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 MS6 FS7 MS8 MS9 MS10 FS11 FS12 TOTAL
Letter 11 25 27 3 3 9 21 7 9 17 1 13 146
According to Table 1 and sample original words listed below; students misuse Turkish letters, prefer foreign
homonym letters. The student, FS3 is the leading student but FS11 does the least misuse in this category.
4.1.1. Misuse of a letter in Turkish (ş>s; ü>u; ç>c; ğ>g)
MS1: dgl(değil), kisi(kişi), sagol(sağol), basına(başına), grsrz(görüşürüz); FS2: duşnyorm(düşünüyorum); FS3:
kac kac(kaç kaç), cok(çok)x2, gececem(geçecem); MS6: soyle(söyle), siniftan(sınıftan), doverm (döverim), hic(hiç);
FS12: yatgma(yatağıma), kagt(kağıt), kiz(kız), yavs yavs(yavaş yavaş), siniftayız(sınıftayız).
4.1.2. Using a homonym letter (v>w, k >q)
FS2: ewt(evet), yaw(yahu); FS3: yooqq(yok), baqq(bak), cooq(çok)x2; FS7: yaw(yahu)x4, snw(sınav),
oow(ooo)x2; MS9 : Eyw(Eyvallah); MS10: sewiom (Seviyorum), dewam(devam), baqalım (bakalım)
4.1.3. Misuse of a vowel at the end of a fluent word
FS5: bişey( bir şey); MS6: bide( bir de); FS12: bi kagt( bir kağıt)
3093
Menderes Ünal and Mustafa Yagci / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 3090 – 3095
4.2. Misuse of Words
Table 2: Students’ misuse of words
MS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 MS6 FS7 MS8 MS9 MS10 FS11 FS12 TOTAL
Word 44 49 39 45 73 22 24 42 11 32 25 36 441
According to Table 2 and sample original words listed below; students omit vowels and consonants, use foreign
words and misuse endings. The students, FS5, FS2 are the leading students but MS9 does the least misuse in this
category.
4.2.1. Omitting vowels: MS1: glysnz(geliyorsunuz), benm(benim), elimdn(elimden), gelmz(gelmez), dgl(değil),
sn(sen); FS2: cnm (canım), mrb( merhaba), duşnyorm(düşünüyorum), terminaldn(terminalden), alr msn(alır mısın);
FS3: evt (evet), brazdn (birazdan), tmm(tamam), blemem(bilemem), yaparm(yaparım), btane(bir tane); FS5: Nasl
(nasıl), ozmn(ozaman), cnm (canım),yaprsn(yaparsın); FS7: snv(sınav), katablrz(katabiliriz), ytr (yeter); FS11:
bnde(ben de), knlda (kanalda), ybncı(yabancı)
4.2.2. Omitting consonants: FS4: iidir( iyidir), ölee(öyle), bilmiorum(bilmiyorum); MS6: solemedm( söylemedim),
dersanenin (dershanenin); MS8: taam(tamam); MS9: olum(oğlum),
4.2.3. Use a foreign word instead of Turkish: MS8: thanks, byy; MS9: Ok; FS12: Ok, Thanx; FS3: sen netten
baqq
4.2.4. Misuse of endings: FS12: napıoun( ne yapıyorsun), arıcam(arıyacağım); FS2: ne ypıon( ne yapıyorsun); FS3:
izliormusun (izliyor musun), gelecem(geleceğim), bilmior(bilmiyor), tutcam(tutacağım) ; FS4: yiyom(yiyorum),
napan ( ne yapıyorsun), bilmioum(bilmiyorum) ; MS8: gircem(gireceğim); MS9: biliyon( biliyorsun)
4.3. Misuse of a sentance (Syntax)
Table 3: Students’ misuse of sentences
MS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 MS6 FS7 MS8 MS9
M
S10 FS11 FS12 TOTAL
Sentence 1 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 6 11 2 3 42
According to Table 3 and sample original words listed below; students use informal phrases and do unnecessary
repetitions. The student, MS10 is the leading student but MS9, MS8 and MS1 do the least misuse in this category.
Moreover, it can be concluded that students are careful about the syntax.
4.3.1. Use colloquial or informal phrases: MS10: iii valla ne olsun, dalqa geçme olum, pampaa napan, kank ben
napcam; FS12: kusura bakma kuzu, bsvr yaz gtsn bea, yoo hıç hatırlamıyorum; FS2: pek zıcak merve yaw; FS5:
Aklına bile gelmiyor odunun; FS7: nöryn la, off iğrençti yaw, yok hacı ben almym.
4.3.2. Repetition to indicate stress: FS3: Yoqq kızz nerdee, coooq sevidimmm; FS5: gıckkk, isteemiiyorsuuuunn,
dinlerimmm; MS8: Eeee; FS4: öleee
4.4. Orthographical Misuse
Table 4: Students’ total orthographical misuse
MS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 MS6 FS7 MS8 MS9 MS10 FS11 FS12 TOTAL
Orthography 5 10 12 3 19 5 11 13 7 14 5 8 112
According to Table 4 and sample original words listed below; students misspell proper names, misuse compound
words and interrogative suffix “-mi”. The student, FS5 is the leading student but FS4 does the least misuse in this
category.
4.4.1. Misuse of upper and lower case letters or misspell of proper names: FS11:Bana Herşey yakışır; FS3:
Bende vAllah, qökhan attı; FS2: pek zıcak merve yaw, :ben ankaraya gelmeyi, iyiym adana, merve videoya bak;
MS10: napcam şu sevdayı; MS10: napcam şu sevdayı; MS6: bide dilek var
4.4.2. Use of double consonants: FS5: saoll, kızmşızz, kızmm; FS2:Ayşegll; FS3: sevindimm
4.4.3. Use diphthongs: MS8: baak; FS3: 2 tanee
3094 Menderes Ünal and Mustafa Yagci / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 3090 – 3095
4.4.4. Misuse of compound or separate words: FS5: bişey( bir şey), hiçbşy, oda öle diyordu, hemde; MS6: bide(
bir de), bakıyorumda, sende haklısın; FS2: video ya bak(videoya bak), tbki (tabi ki), işrtne nerdn bstn; FS3: sonun
da (sonunda); FS5: bitin ce (bitince); FS4: bnd öleee yapym ozmn; MS8:boşver
4.4.5. Misuse of interrogative suffix “-mi”: MS10:derse girdimi, yoklama aldımı; FS3:kız maçı izlıormusun,
dedemlerdemisin, cözdünmü; FS4: hoca gld m, doyarsın dimi; MS8: ders falan işldnzmi
4.4.6. Misspell of a word in a sentence: MS6: hmde hic prensiplerime aykırı değil; FS2: sıcak tbki nerde gölge
sende; FS7: benimkide; MS8: Ndn gelmedinki; FS7: tabisi kaçmaz(tabii ki kaçmaz); MS1:tanşyruz mu(tanışıyor
muyuz)
5. Conclusion
Table 5: Students’ total misuse of words
MS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 MS6 FS7 MS8 MS9 MS10 FS11
F
S12 TOTAL
Letter 11 25 27 3 3 9 21 7 9 17 1 13 146
Word 44 49 39 45 72 22 24 42 11 32 25 36 441
Sentence 1 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 6 11 2 3 42
Orthographical 5 10 12 3 19 5 11 13 7 14 5 8 112
TOTAL 61 87 81 54 99 38 58 63 33 74 33 60 741
Table 5 shows the misuses on four factors; “letter”, “words”, “sentence” and “orthography”. Students misuse
Turkish letters such as “c, s, g, ı” instead of “ç, ş, ğ, i” which are more difficult to write. Because of the same reason,
they usually omit vowels and sometimes consonants as well. They rarely use foreign letters and words in their text
messages. The students use abbreviations and one-word texts in their messages to save time. It is concluded that
they place text messages into voice calls. MS8 states that less encouraged, shy students prefer text because they
express themselves easily. FS2 claims that speaking on the phone takes a few minutes but writing text messages
lasts for many hours, which has a special meaning. FS5 also emphasizes that long text messages show someone’s
close interest or sympathy to whom they communicate with.
Moreover, MS10 interestingly states “I sent a text message nothing written in it. It means that I never forget
you”. It is the fact that FS5 says “when I am in the exam, taking note or speaking to my classmates, I sometimes
misuse words, do abbreviation as if I’m chatting or texting to my friend”. It can be concluded that; students’ daily
speech has been affected and spoiled by their short text messages, using informal language on mobile phones.
Moreover, it is observed that new expressions, patterns and symbols have been entering into Turkish language by
means of students’ text messages.
The misuses of the language with the categories and sub-categories are illustrated in the following fishbone
diagram, is a kind of concept map (Fig 1)
Fig.1 Fis h bon e D iag r am of F in di ngs
LETTER
SENTENCE
O RTO G RAP HY
WO RD
M i suse f act or s and categor i es of t he l anguage
M i suse of
the
Language
(Turkish)
Us in g f o r eig n wo r ds
Omit t ing consonant s
Omitting vowel
Use of hom onym
Turkish letter
Co llo q u il / id io m s
Repet it ion
Upper / Lower case
Double consonant
Dipht hongs
Com pound wor ds
M isuse of suf f ix
M isuse of vowels
Misuse of endings
M isspell a wor d
3095
Menderes Ünal and Mustafa Yagci / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 3090 – 3095
To find out the reasons and ways to overcome the misuse, students’ self-evaluations were analyzed and found
that students’ unconsciousness (FS5) was the main reason. For example, FS2, MS8 and FS1 confess that the misuses
of words are because of their being careless and inattentive while writing. Therefore, both in and out of the school,
the students’ attention should be taken to use the language properly. In addition to students’ suggestion, apart from
Turkish language, misuses in different languages can be investigated comparatively to find out global effect of
communication technologies on the language uses. For example, considering the most widely used abbreviations of
words or phrases which belong to English and their equivalents in communication technology, it can be seen that
students use “c” instead of “see”; “4” instead of “four”; “2” instead of “to”; “u” instead of “you” (Tosun,2012).
Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should focus on the negative effects of technology besides its advantages.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Ahi Evran University directors for supporting the study
in the frame of Scientific Research Projects.
References
Akkoyunlu, B. and Orhan, F. (2001). The use of computers in K-12 Schools in Turkey. TechTrends,45(6), 29-31.
Aksan, D. (1990). Her Yönüyle Dil. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları: 439, Ankara.
Aksoy, Ö. A. (1991) Dil Yanlışları. Adam Yayınları, İstanbul.
Thornton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). ‘Using mobile phones in English education in Japan’. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 21 (3): 217-228.
Naismith L, Lonsdale P, Vavoula G and Sharples, M. (2004). Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and
Learning. Future Lab Report 11. Accessed 20th November 2012 from:
http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf
Crabtree, J, Nathan, M and Roberts, S (2003). Mobile UK: Mobile Phones and Everyday Life. The Work
Foundation. London:
Tosun, N. (2012). The Effect Of The Internet And Mobile Phones On The Habit Of Teacher Candidates’ Using
Turkish Language As Written Language. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55 ( 2012 ) 766 – 775
Yaman, H, and Erdoğan, Y. (2007). İnternet Kullanımının Türkçeye Etkileri: Nitel Bir Araştırma. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies.3(2).
Denzin, K, N. and Lincoln, S. Y. (2011). Handbook of qualitative research (5th Ed.) Sage Publications Inc. London,
United Kingdom.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri.Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
Robson, C. (2001). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. USA: Sage.
Ergin, M. (1995). Türk dili. İstanbul: Bayrak Yayınları.
Cohen, L. ve Manion, L. (1997). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.