The proliferation of large language models capable of producing fluent Turkish prose confronts linguistic scholarship with a problem inverse to its longstanding concern: rather than analysing texts of known human provenance, scholars now face the task of determining whether a given text was authored by a human writer, generated by a machine, or composed through some combination of the two. Existing detection systems based on perplexity and burstiness suffer from opacity, English-language bias, and an inability to handle hybrid composition. The present study advances a forensic linguistic alternative grounded in the presence/absence coding framework and Jaccard similarity coefficient developed by Grant (2013) and adapted to Turkish in Kocagül (2022). Drawing on a corpus of 336 argumentative texts produced by 56 participants across six task conditions, the analysis applies 61 active linguistic features distributed across lexical, syntactic, structural, AI-specific, and data-driven categories. Three findings emerge. AI-generated Turkish texts exhibit a coherent feature profile, most distinctively elevated semicolon and comma density, sentence-initial discourse markers, recurrent ‑Arak converb chaining, and formulaic closing vocabulary. The within-author Jaccard baseline (0.41) substantially exceeds all human-to-machine comparisons (0.22-0.30), while the AI-to-hybrid pairing reaches 0.52, confirming the persistence of the AI lexical profile across editorial intervention. In edited hybrid texts, 41 of 61 features (67%) remain shifted from the writers’ baseline toward the AI baseline, indicating that lexical and discourse-organisational features pass below the editor’s threshold of attention. The findings characterise an AI-typical linguistic profile in argumentative Turkish and contribute a Turkish-language case to a corpus linguistic and forensic literature whose principal benchmarks have until recently excluded the language.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hulya Kocagul (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: