top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
open access

Published: 15 December 2022

The Effects of Language Exposure, Linguistic Distance, and Demographic Variables on Gagauz Students’ Turkish Listening Skills

Kayhan İnan

Amasya University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



Pages: 208-221

Keywords: Language Exposure, Linguistic Distance, Listening Skills, Turkish as a Foreign Language, Gagauz Learners


This quantitative research examined the variables affecting the Turkish listening skills of high school students living in Moldova-Gagauzia. It was evaluated effects of language exposure, linguistic distance, demographic variables (gender, settlement type, mother tongue, and Turkish language level) on participants’ Turkish listening skills. 148 participants were students at Süleyman Demirel Moldo-Turkish High School in Kongaz. The data were collected using two instruments: The Turkish language exposure scale and listening tests. The scale was developed by Çobanoğlu Aktan and İnan (2020) to determine Turkish language learners' out-of-school exposure to Turkish. Listening test was developed based on Yunus Emre Institute’s “Yedi İklim Türkçe Öğretim Seti". Afterward, the listening test results were analyzed to determine the variables that predicted listening performance. The research results indicated a low level of Turkish exposure among the participants. Females were exposed to Turkish more. There was no relationship between their listening test performance and exposure, mostly including Turkish visual and auditory media. In addition, in the Turkish listening exam, it was seen that the native speakers of Gagauz were more advantageous than Russian. The reason why the A1-2 level participants were more successful in the listening skill test might be the linguistic proximity and similarities of basic vocabulary between Turkish and Gagauz. It was concluded that linguistic distance was a stronger predictor than other variables.


  1. Aktürk, O., & Yağbasan, M. (2020). The effects Of Turkish series on Azerbaijan citizens and contribution to Turkish. Intermedia International E-journal, 7(12), 33-46.

  2. Arbatlı, S. M., & Kurar, İ. (2015). The effect of Turkish TV series on the Kazakh-Turkish cultural interaction and spread of Turkish language. Journal of Turkish Studies, 10(2), 31-48.

  3. Arık, İ., & Çelik, F (2019). The effect of Turkish serials on Turkish learning in Central Asian Turkic republics (sample of Kyrgyzstan). Journal of International Social Research, 12(64), 677–691.

  4. Bahrani, T., & Sim, T. S. (2012). Audiovisual news, cartoons, and films as authentic language input and language proficiency development. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 56-64.

  5. Beenstock, M., Chiswick, B. R., & Repetto, G. L. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance and country of origin on immigrant language skills: Application to Israel. International Migration, 39(3), 33-60.

  6. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.

  7. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1), 69-83. 1978.tb00305.x

  8. Brinton, D., & Gaskill, W. (1978). Using news broadcast in EFL/ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 12(2), 403-415.

  9. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status, and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition (pp. 8-20). Multilingual Matters.

  10. Çobanoğlu Aktan, D., & İnan, K. (2017). Investigation of the achievement scores of the people learning Turkish as a foreign language according to linguistic distance. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 8(1), 19-46.

  11. Çobanoğlu Aktan, D., & İnan, K. (2020). Investigation of validity and reliability of the Turkish language exposure scale. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 49(1), 225-256.

  12. Corder, S. P. (1978). Language distance and the magnitude of the language learning task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 27–36.

  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design. Sage.

  14. d’Ydewalle, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Incidental foreign-language acquisition by children watching subtitled television programs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(3), 227-244.

  15. De Wilde, V., Brysbaert, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2020). Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained, and which types of input are important? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 171-185. doi:10.1017/S1366728918001062

  16. Doerfer, G. (1959). Das Gagausische. In J. Deny, L. Bazin, H. R. Roemer, & E. J. Zürcher (Eds.), Philologiae Turcicae fundamenta, (pp. 260-271). Aquis Mattiacis.

  17. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. Pearson Education.

  18. Gonulal, T. (2020). Improving listening skills with extensive listening using podcasts and vodcasts. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 311-320.

  19. González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2015). How much collocation knowledge do L2 learners have? The effects of frequency and amount of exposure. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(1), 94-126.

  20. Johanson, L. (2020). Turkic language contacts. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact, (pp. 652-672). Wiley-Blackwell.

  21. Khaghaninejad, S. M., & Fahandejsaadi, R. (2016). Music and language learning.Shiraz University Press.

  22. Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.Prentice-Hall.

  23. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1988). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Prentice-Hall.

  24. Kuppens, A. H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(1), 65-85.

  25. Kurt, B. (2017). Turkish language teaching in the autonomous region of Gagauz Yeri [Gagauz Yeri özerk bölgesinde Türkiye Türkçesi öğretimi]. Sonçağ Publishing.

  26. Larsen Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

  27. Lindgren, E., & Muñoz, C. (2013). The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European learners' foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(1), 105-129.

  28. Littlewood, W. (1986). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

  29. Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Los Angeles.

  30. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition(pp. 377-393). Newbury House.

  31. Mehrpour, S., & Rahimi, M. (2010). The impact of general and specific vocabulary knowledge on reading and listening comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. System 38(2), 292-300.

  32. Menz, A. (2006). On complex sentences in Gagauz. In H. Boeschoten & L. Johanson (Eds.), Turkic languages in contact, (pp. 139-151). Harrassowitz.

  33. Moseley, C. (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger.UNESCO Publishing.

  34. Muñoz, C. (2011). Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 113-133.

  35. Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463-482.

  36. Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. (1992). Captioned television as comprehensible input: Effects of incidental word learning from context for language minority students. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 95-106.

  37. Nimani, M., & Dagarin, F. (2019). Correlation between students' English listening skills, vocabulary skills, and out-of-school listening exposure. The New Educational Review, 55(1), 42-53.

  38. Pavia, N., Webb, S., & Faez, F. (2019). Incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 745-768. doi:10.1017/S0272263119000020

  39. Peters, E. (2018). The effect of out-of-class exposure to English language media on learners’ vocabulary knowledge. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 142-168.

  40. Peters, E., Heynen, E., & Puimege, E. (2016). Learning vocabulary through audiovisual input: The differential effect of L1 subtitles and captions. System,63, 134-148.

  41. Peters, E., Noreillie, A., Heylen, K., Bulté, B., & Desmet, P. (2019). The impact of instruction and out-of-school exposure to foreign language input on learners’ vocabulary knowledge in two languages. Language Learning, 69(3), 747-782.

  42. Poon, A.Y. (1992). Action research: A Study on using TV news to improve listening proficiency. Research Report, 14, 1-70.

  43. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning.Multilingual Matters.

  44. Suárez, M., & Gesa, F. (2019): Learning vocabulary with the support of sustained exposure to captioned video: do proficiency and aptitude make a difference? The Language Learning Journal, 47(4), 497-517.

  45. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. (2014). Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26(1), 3-20. doi:10.1017/S0958344013000232

  46. Sundqvist, P., & Wikstrom, P. (2015). Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System, 51, 65-76.

  47. Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321. doi:10.1017/S095834401200016X

  48. Tekin, T. (1978). The family of Turkic languages [Türk dilleri ailesi]. Turkish Language/Türk Dili, 37(318), 173-183.

  49. Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. The Modern Language Journal, 61(7), 325-337.

  50. United Nations Development Programme. (2020). Inequalities in urban and rural Moldova.

  51. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.

  52. Webb, S. (2015). Extensive viewing: Language learning through watching television. In D. Nunan & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Language learning beyond the classroom(pp. 159-168). Routledge.

  53. Webb, S., & Chang, A. C. S. (2015). Second language vocabulary learning through extensive reading with audio support: How do frequency and distribution of occurrence affect learning? Language Teaching Research, 19(9), 667-686.

bottom of page