Okul Dilinin Sistematik İşlevsel Dilbilimi Çerçevesinden Gizli Müfredat Olarak Bir Değerlendirmesi: Ortaöğretim Fen Bilgisi ve Türkçe Ders Kitaplarında Sebep Sonuç İlişkilerinin Metinsel Temsili Örneği

Year 2024, , 109 - 132, 30.04.2024

Ayşe Tokaç Kan

https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1405210

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Sistematik İşlevsel Dilbilim (SİD) teorisinin temel kavramları sunularak Türkçe okul dilinin dil bilgisel özellikleri betimlenmektedir. Okul dili ile ilgili sunulan betimlemeler eğitim müfredatlarına dair Basil Bernstein tarafından ortaya atılan yeniden bağlamsallaştırma ve gizli müfredat kavramları çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir.
Çalışmada ayrıca okul ortamına has dil kullanım usullerinin ana okulu, ilk öğretim, orta okul ve lise kademelerindeki öğrenciler için önemi genel hatları ile ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmada orta okul kademesine odaklanılarak, bu kademenin okul başarısında ve öğrencilerin anadil gelişimindeki önemi tartışılmıştır. Ortaokul kademesinin bilim dallarının dil kullanım usullerinin öğrenciler tarafından ediminde önemli bir dönem olduğu savı ders kitaplarından örneklerle açıklanarak savunulmuştur. Ortaokul kademesinde okutulan dört adet fen bilgisi ve dört adet Türkçe ders kitabı üzerinde yapılan dil bilgisel betimleme ve analiz sunularak halihazırda kullanımda olan kitaplardaki metinlerin dil bilgisel özelliklere sahip olduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler ışığında, MEB ders kitaplarındaki metinlerin hangi dil bilgisel özelliklere sahip olması gerektiğine dair değerlendirmeler ve öneriler yeniden bağlamsallaştırma, gizli müfredat ve SİD’din sunduğu kavramlar çerçevesinde sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Sistematik İşlevsel Dilbilim, Okul Dili, Yeniden Bağlamsallaştırma, Gizli Müfredat, Dil Bilgisel Eğretileme, Ortaokul Fen ve Türkçe Ders Kitaplarında Sebep Sonuç İlişkileri

An Evaluation of School Language as the Hidden Curriculum Within The Systematic Functional Linguistics Framework: The Case of Textual Representation of Cause-And-Effect Relationships in Secondary School Science and Turkish Language Textbooks

Abstract

This study describes the linguistic features of Turkish school language using the concepts of the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The findings of the study are assessed within the framework of hidden curriculum and Basil Bernstein's concept of recontextualization, which are pertinent to educational curricula.
Additionally, the study underscores the language usage practices specific to the school environment across various educational levels, including kindergarten, primary school, middle school, and high school. The study asserts the importance of the middle school level in achieving academic success and fostering students' first language development. The assertion that the middle school level constitutes a pivotal period for students' language development is substantiated and elucidated through examples from school textbooks. Four science and four Turkish language textbooks currently in use at the middle school level are analyzed to provide linguistic descriptions regarding the Turkish school language. The study presents evaluations and suggestions regarding the features instructional texts should possess during this critical period based on the curricular concepts such as recontextualization and hidden curriculum.

Keywords

Systemic Functional Linguistics, School Language, Recontextualization, Hidden Curriculum, Grammatical Metaphors, Cause-and-Effect Relationships in Middle School Science and Turkish Language Textbooks

References

• Öztürk, B. (2018). Tartışma Metinlerinde Dilbilgisel Bağlaşıklık Kullanımı. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(1), 1161-1190.
• Akter, S., Arslan, H. B., & Şimşek, M. (2019). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu Fen Bilimleri Ders Kitabı 5. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
• Bernstein, B. (1967). Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences. Ardent Media.
• Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique . Rowman & Littlefield.
• Bernstein, B. (2003a). Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language. Psychology Press., 2.
• Bernstein, B. (2003b). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmission. Psychology Press., 3.
• Bernstein, B. (2003c). Class, codes and control: the structuring of pedagogic discourse . Psychology Press., 4.
• Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1995). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. London: Arnold.
• Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. London/New York: Routledge: London/New York: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317816164.
• Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. N. T. D. R. Olson içinde, Literacy, language, and learning: The natüre and consequences of reading and writing (s. 105-123). Cambridge.
• Christie, F. (1985). Language and schooling. S. Tchudi içinde, Language, schooling and society (s. 21-40). NJ: Boynton/Cook.
• Christie, F. (1986). Writing in schools: Generic structures as ways of meaning. B. Couture içinde, Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (s. 221-239). London: Frances Pinter.
• Christie, F. (1999). Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes. London: Continuum.
• Christie, F., & Martin, J. (1997). Genre and insttitutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
• Clark, H. H. (1977). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. I. P.-L. Wason içinde, Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (s. 98-113). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, U. (2019). Developing language and literacy in English across the secondary school curriculum: An inclusive approach. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93239-2
• Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. I. F. Martin içinde, Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (s. 126-230). London: Cassell.
• Doughty, P., Pearce, J., & Thornton, G. (1970). Language in use. London: Edward Arnold.
• Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A university course in English grammar. New York and London: Prentice Hall.
• Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. (2015). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE project. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31000-2
• Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2002). Getting started with functional grammar. Berry, NSW, Australia: Target Texts.
• Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). The Appropriacy of 'Appropriateness'. N. In Fairclough içinde, Critical Language Awareness (s. 33-56). London: Routledge.
• Forsyth, I., & Wood, K. (1977). Language and communication. Books 1 and 2. London: Edward Arnold.
• Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of second language writing,, 20(1), 45-55.
• Halliday, M. A. (1964). The users and uses of language. A. M. M. A. K. Halliday içinde, The linguistic sciences and language teaching (s. 75-100). London: Longman.
• Halliday, M. A. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. (1979). One child’s protolanguage. M. Bullowa içinde, Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (s. 171-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Halliday, M. A. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Halliday, M. A. (1993a). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. I. M. Martin içinde, Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (s. 69-85). Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Halliday, M. A. (1993b). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116.
• Halliday, M. A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. J. R. Veel içinde, Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (s. 185-235). London: Routledge.
• Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social- semiotic perspective. England: Oxford University Press.
• Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (2006). Retrospective on SFL and literacy. M. O. R. Whittaker içinde, Language and literacy: Functional approaches (s. 15-44). London/New York: Bloomsbury.
• Halliday, M. A., & Martin, J. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press.: Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Halliday, M. A., & Mathiessen, C. M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
• Harvey, N. (1993). Text analysis for specific purposes. Prospect, 8(3), 25-41.
• Hasan, R. (1996). The Grammarian’s Dream: Lexis As Most Delicate Grammar. In C. C., B. D., & WilliamsG., Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning-Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan (pp. 73-103). London/New York: Cassell.
• Humphrey, S. (2016). Academic literacies in the middle years: A framework for enhancing teacher knowledge and student achievement. London/New York: Routledge.
• Hymes, D. (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. .
• Korkmaz, Z. (2022). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri Şekil Bilgisi. Ankara: Kurumu Yayınları.
• Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Mackay, D., Thompson, B., & Schaub, P. (1970). Breakthrough to literacy: Teacher’s manual. The theory and practice of teaching initial reading and writing. London: Longman for the Schools Council.
• Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing. England: Oxford University Press.
• Martin, J. R. (1991). Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. E. Ventola içinde, Functional and systemic linguistics (s. 307-337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Martin, J. R. (2002). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. M. J. Colombi içinde, Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (s. 8-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Er.
• Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, C. M., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
• Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard educational review, 48(1), 32-64.
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nystrand, M. (1982). What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic.
• O'Halloran, K. (1999). Towards a Systemic Functional Analysis of Multisemiotic Mathematics Texts. Semiotica, 124(1/2), 1-29.
• O'Halloran, K. (2000). Classroom Discourse in Mathematics: A Multisemiotic Analysis. Linguistics and Education, Special Edition: Language and Other Semiotic Systems in Education., 10(3), 359-388.
• Painter, C. (1984). Into the Mother Tongue: A case study in early language development. London: Frances Pinter.
• Ravelli, L. (2000). Getting started with functional analysis of texts. L. Unsworth içinde, Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (s. 27-64). London: (Continuum) Cassell.
• Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. . London: Equinox.
• Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and education, 12(4), 431-459.
• Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165-189.
• Snow, C. E. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second language learners’ acquisition of description and explanation. In J. Lantoff, & R. DiPietro, Second Language Acquisition in the Classroom Setting (pp. 3-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Snow, C. E. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second language learners’ acquisition of description and explanation. In j. Lantolff, & R. DiPietro, Second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp. 3-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Snow, C., Cancini, H., Gonzalez, P., & Shriberg, E. (1989). Giving Formal Definitions: An Oral Language Correlate Of School Literacy. In D. Bloome, Classrooms and Literacy (pp. 233-249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Swales, J. (2011). The concept of discourse community. Writing about writing: A college reader, 215-224.
• Tüysüz, S. (2019). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu T.C. İnkılap Tarihi ve Atatürkçülük Ders Kitabı . Ankara: Destek Yayıncılık.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1987-1934). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky,. R. Rieber, & T. M. Hall) içinde, Volume 4: The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
• Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. . Cambridge university press.
• Williams , G. (1999). The pedagogic device and the production of pedagogic discourse: A case example in early literacy education. . F. Christie içinde, Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (s. 88-122). London: Continuum.
• Williams, G. (2000). Literacy pedagogy prior to schooling: Relations between social positioning and semantic variation. I. N. A. Morais içinde, Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (s. 17-46). New York: Peter Lang.