Article published In: Language Problems and Language Planning: Online-First Articles
Consistency of Turkish zoological terminology with scientific literature
A case study of the Turkish Dictionary
Published online: 19 October 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.26036.mad
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.26036.mad
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the compatibility of zoology-related terms in the Turkish Dictionary
with contemporary scientific literature and to evaluate the adequacy of dictionary resources in representing emerging scientific
disciplines. Despite the established role of terminology in scientific literature and knowledge sharing, sufficient research has
not been conducted on the extent to which dictionaries include vocabulary specific to particular fields. In this context, the
study is considered useful for interventions related to corpus planning of Turkish vocabulary. A qualitative case study design was
employed to identify 520 entries classified in the zoology category of the Turkish Dictionary. The entries in the zoology category
were analyzed and compared with frequently used keywords identified through bibliometric analysis of publications in national and
international databases, including the Web of Science. The results of the study indicate that the Turkish Dictionary adequately
represents the fundamental concepts in zoology; however, it only partially covers the terminology used in international
publications originating in Turkey. Notable gaps were identified in both established and emerging areas, particularly taxonomy and
biodiversity, molecular genetics, biotechnology, and environmental terminology. These findings underscore the need to update
national dictionaries systematically and to enhance collaboration between lexicographers and field experts. This study contributes
to corpus planning research by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between national lexicographic resources and
contemporary scientific usage. The findings also have implications for the systematic standardization and updating of scientific
Turkish.
Özet
Türkçe Zooloji Terminolojisinin Bilimsel Literatürle Tutarlılığı: Türkçe Sözlük Örneği
Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkçe Sözlük’teki zooloji ile ilgili terminolojinin güncel bilimsel literatürle
uyumluluğunu incelemek ve sözlükteki terimsel söz varlığının bilimsel disiplinleri temsil etme yeterliliğini değerlendirmektir.
Terimlerin bilimsel literatür ve bilgi iletişimindeki yerleşik rolüne rağmen, sözlüklerin disiplinlere özgü kelime dağarcığını ne
oranda temsil ettiği üzerine yeterince araştırma yapılmamıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın Türkçe söz varlığına yönelik korpus
planlaması çalışmalarına katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Türkçe Sözlük’teki zooloji kategorisinde sınıflandırılan sözcükleri
belirlemek için nitel bir vaka çalışması tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Zooloji kategorisindeki maddeler analiz edilmiş ve Web of
Science dahil olmak üzere ulusal ve uluslararası veritabanlarındaki yayınların bibliyometrik analizi yoluyla belirlenen sık
kullanılan anahtar kelimelerle karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, Türkçe Sözlüğün zoolojideki temel kavramları 520 madde
ile yeterince temsil ettiğini; ancak Türkiye adresli uluslararası yayınlarda tercih edilen terminolojiyi yalnızca kısmen
kapsadığını göstermektedir. Başta taksonomi ve biyoçeşitlilik, moleküler genetik, biyoteknoloji ve çevre terminolojisi olmak
üzere, gerek köklü gerekse yeni ortaya çıkan alanlarda önemli boşluklar saptanmıştır. Bu sonuçlar, ulusal sözlüklerin sistematik
olarak güncellenmesi ve sözlükbilimciler ile alan uzmanları arasındaki işbirliğinin artırılması ihtiyacını vurgulamaktadır. Bu
çalışma, ulusal sözlükbilimsel kaynaklar ile güncel bilimsel dil kullanımı arasındaki ilişkiye dair ampirik kanıtlar sunarak
derlem planlaması araştırmalarına katkı sağlamaktadır. Bulgular ayrıca bilimsel Türkçenin sistematik olarak standartlaştırılması
ve güncellenmesi açısından da önem taşımaktadır.
Resumo
Konformeco de la turka zoologia terminologio kun la scienca literaturo: Studokazo pri la Turka Vortaro
La celo de tiu ĉi studo estas ekzameni la kongruecon de zoologiaj terminoj en la Turka Vortaro kun la
nuntempa scienca literaturo kaj taksi la adekvatecon de vortaraj rimedoj por reprezenti aperantajn sciencajn disciplinojn. Malgraŭ
la establita rolo de terminologio en scienca literaturo kaj scio-interŝanĝo, ne sufiĉe da esplorado estis farita pri tio, kiom
amplekse vortaroj inkluzivas la vortprovizon specifan al apartaj fakoj. En tiu ĉi kunteksto, la studo estas konsiderata utila por
intervenoj rilataj al korpusplanado de la turka vortprovizo. Kvalita studokaza dezajno estis uzata por identigi 520 enirojn
klasifikitajn en la zoologia kategorio de la Turka Vortaro. La eniroj en la zoologia kategorio estis analizitaj kaj komparitaj kun
ofte uzataj ŝlosilvortoj identigitaj per bibliometria analizo de publikigaĵoj en naciaj kaj internaciaj datumbazoj, inkluzive de
la Web of Science. La rezultoj de la studo indikas, ke la Turka Vortaro adekvate reprezentas la fundamentajn konceptojn en
zoologio; tamen ĝi nur parte kovras la terminologion uzatan en internaciaj publikigaĵoj el Turkio. Rimarkindaj mankoj estis
trovitaj en kaj establitaj kaj novaj kampoj, precipe en taksonomio kaj biodiverseco, molekula genetiko, bioteknologio kaj
terminologio pri medio. Tiuj ĉi rezultoj substrekas la bezonon sisteme ĝisdatigi naciajn vortarojn kaj plifortigi la kunlaboron
inter leksikografoj kaj fakuloj. Tiu ĉi studo kontribuas al korpusplanada esplorado, provizante empirian pruvon pri la rilato
inter naciaj leksikografiaj rimedoj kaj nuntempa scienca uzado. La rezultoj ankaŭ havas implicojn por la sistemeca normigado kaj
ĝisdatigo de la scienca turka lingvo.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Conceptual framework
- Aim and research questions
- Methodology
- Research design
- Data source
- Data collection and analysis
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Reliability and validity
- Results
- Results for the first research question
- Results for the second research question
- Results for the third research question
- Results for the fourth research question
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Recommendations
- Limitations
- Authors’ contributions
- Availability of data and materials
- Generative AI use disclosure statement
- Disclosure statement
References
References (49)
Aria, Massimo & Cuccurullo, Corrado (2017). Bibliometrix:
An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of
Informetrics, 11, 959–975.
Banshchikov, Dmitry S. (2024). Conceptual modeling of the
terminological system of urban planning. Tomsk State Pedagogical University
Bulletin, 1 (231), 15–22.
Bergenholtz, Henning, & Gouws, Rufus H. (2010). A functional approach
to the choice between descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive
lexicography. Lexikos, 20(1), 26–51.
Bergenholtz, Henning, & Tarp, Sven (2003). Two
opposing theories. On H.E. Wiegand’s recent discovery of lexicographic functions. HERMES —
Journal of Language and Communication in
Business, 16(31), 171–196.
Bhatia, Vijay K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A
genre-based view. London: Continuum International. [URL]
Bowen, Glenn A. (2009). Document analysis as a
qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Cabré, Maria T. (1999). Terminology. Theory, methods, and
applications. Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia. [URL]
Creswell, John W. & Poth, Cheryl N. (2018). Qualitative ınquiry and
research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications. [URL]
Cooper, Robert L. (1990). Frontmatter. In Language Planning and
Social Change (pp.
i–iv). frontmatter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [URL]
Costa-Carreras, Joan (2024). What
corpus language planning is in place for public television outlets in the Catalan communicative
space? Current Issues in Language
Planning, 25(3), 330–347.
Darquennes, Jeroen (2010). Language
contact and language conflict in autochthonous language minority settings in the EU: A preliminary round-up of guiding
principles and research
desiderata. Multilingua, 29(3–4), 337–351.
Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng M. (2021). How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business
Research, 133; 285–296.
Edwards, John (2024). Language
policy and planning: terms of engagement, in Gazzola, M., François, G., Linda, C., and Kathleen, H. (eds.) The
Routledge handbook of language policy and
planning, pp. 49–65. London: Routledge.
Ergashev, Mirjalol (2025). The
terminology of animal names: A crossroad of language, science, and culture. Tanqidiy Nazar,
Tahliliy Tafakkur va Innovatsion G
‘Oyalar, 2(1), 915–919. [URL]
Ergene, Oğuz (2014). Examples
of idiomatic transfer formed by animal names and body parts in the vocabulary of
Turkish. Journal of Turkish
Studies, 9(6), 319–365. [URL]
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. (Ed.). (2017). The
Routledge Handbook of Lexicography (1st
ed.). Routledge.
Gobbo, Federico (2023). Corpus
at the Core: The Epistemology of Language
Planning. In: Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations in Language
Policy and Planning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Jadigerova, Aygul (2025). Explorıng
zoonyms: Linguistic and cultural significance in human society. Journal of Foreign Languages
and Linguistics, 4(1). Retrieved
from [URL]
Kahraman, Mehmet (2024). A
study on the comparison of term dictionaries and general dictionaries: Example of ‘Ädebïettanw Termïnderiniñ
Sözdigi’. Discours Journal of
Philology, 9(2), 1069–1093.
Kaplan, Robert B., & Baldauf, Richard B. (1997). Language planning from
practice to theory. Multilingual Matters.
Karppinen, Kari, & Moe, Hallvard (2019). Texts
as data I: Document analysis. In K. Karppinen & H. Moe (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy
research (pp. 249–262). Springer International Publishing. [URL].
Karaer, Mina C., Arslan, Kurtay A., Per, Esra & Karaer, Zafer (2023). Bibliometric
Analysis of Postgraduate Theses in the Field of Acarology in Turkey. Gazi University Faculty of
Science
Journal, 4 (1), 14–31. [URL]
Kırbaş, Gülsüm (2025). Ethnic
names related to animal names ın Turkmen language. Journal of Academic Language and
Literature, 9(2), 979–1009.
Loeb, Susanna & Dynarski, Susan & McFarland, Daniel & Morris, Pamela & Reardon, Sean, & Reber, Sarah (2017). Descriptive
analysis in education: a guide for researchers. NCEE 2017–4023. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [URL]
Mayring, Philipp (2014). Qualitative
content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures, and software
solution. Klagenfurt. [URL]
Merriam, Sharan B., & Tisdell, Elizabeth J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide
to design and ımplementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [URL]
Meyer, Charles F. (2023). Planning the construction of a
corpus. In English corpus linguistics: An
introduction (pp. 42–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [URL].
Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael, & Saldana, Johnny (2014). Qualitative
data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. [URL]
Mumcuoğlu, Kosta Y. & Bayrak, Naci & Şenel, Engin & Keskin, Adem & Taşdemir, Abdulkadir, & Taylan Özkan, Ayşegül (2024). Bibliometric
and scientometric analysis of acarological publications in Türkiye between 1992 and
2023. Acarological
Studies, 6(2), 112–126.
Nesi, Hilary (2015). ESP
corpus construction: a plea for a needs-driven
approach. ASp, 68, 7–24. URL: [URL];
Nhongo, Raphael, & Nkomo, Dion (2025). Issues
with corpus planning in Zimbabwe’s previously marginalized languages in Matabeleland. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 46(9), 3057–3069.
Patton, Michael (2015). Qualitative
research and evaluation methods. 4th Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. [URL]
Paulette Ezuruike, Ijeoma (2017). Cultural
conceptualizations of animal names: A semantics perspective. Journal of The Linguistic
Association of
Nigeria, 20(2). Retrieved
from [URL]
Ricento, Thomas (2000). Historical
and theoretical perspectives in language policy and
planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology,
politics and language policies: Focus on
English (pp. 9–24). John Benjamins.
Sandelowski, Margarete (2010). What
is in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing &
Health, 33(1), 77–84.
Schreier, Margit (2012). Qualitative
content analysis in
practice. (Vols. 1–0). SAGE Publications Ltd. [URL]
Smith, Jordan (2023). Corpus
linguistics and technical editing: How corpora can help copy editors adopt a rhetorical view of prescriptive usage
rules. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 37(2), 194–216.
Svensén, Bo (2009). A
Handbook of lexicography: The theory and practice of dictionary-making. Cambridge University Press. [URL] [URL]
Swales, John (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
Taçbaş, Erkan & Çakır, Şahin & Özkan, Solmaz & Demir, Derya (2023). A
bibliometric analysis of the articles produced by the research projects supported by TAGEM, classified by subject
area. Etlik Veterinary Microbiology
Journal, 34(1), 73–80.
Turkish Language
Association (2023). Turkish Dictionary (12th
ed.). Turkish Language Association Publications. [URL]
Turkish Language Association (2026). About
us. [URL]
van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo (2014). Visualizing
bibliometric networks. In: Ding, Ying & Rousseau, Ronald & Wolfram, Dietmar (eds) Measuring
Scholarly Impact. Springer, Cham.
Vogel, Anna (2020). To
evaluate corpus planning. A case of a Swedish language policy action concerning terms for
disability. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 21(1),88–104.
Yağmuroğlu, Dilara & Per, Esra (2022). Bibliometric
analyses of postgraduate theses on mammals in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and
Science, 12(1), 133–147. [URL]