Abstract
The Technology of History, which is used in coding historical texts, aiming at distancing the recoverable past from story, evolves these texts from narrative to argumentation rhetorical mode, or from more concrete to more abstract. This study questions whether or not this evolution function and the rhetorical modes preferred in historical texts can be defined taking nominalisation, which is the most common means of coding abstraction and distancing, as a criterion. The results of the study show that, the frequency and the functions of the nominalisations which were analysed within the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistic and in the scope of a sampling comprising of texts obtained from the textbooks used in primary education in Turkey, can be used as a criterion in defining the preferred rheorical mode in the historical texts.
Keywords
Keywords: The discourse of history Technology of History Nominalization Narrative Argument Tran
References
- Burke, P. (1991). New Perspectives on Historical Writing. Oxford, U.K.: Polity Press. Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. F. Christie ve J.R. Martin (Ed.), Genre and Institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school içinde (ss. 67-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex . Coffin, C. (2000). History as Discourse: Construals of Time, Cause and Appraisal. Doktora Tezi, University of New South Wales. Coffin, C. (2004). Learning to write history: The role of causality. Written Communication,21: 261– 2 Coffin, C. (2006).Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 4: 413–29. Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. Eggins, S., Wignell, P., ve Martin, J. R. (1993).The discourse of history: Distancing the recoverable past. M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice içinde (ss. 75-109). London: Pinter.
- Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London ve New York: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1994), Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, U.K.: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). Things and Relations: Regrammaticing experience as technical knowledge. J. R. Martin ve R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science içinde (ss. 185-235). London: Routledge. Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge. Martin, J.R. (1991). Nominalization in science and Humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics içinde (ss. 307-337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philedelphia: John Benjamins. Martin, J.R. (1999).Mentoring semogenesis: ‘Genre-based’ literacy pedagogy, F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Shaping of Conciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes içinde (ss. 123-155). London: Continuum. Matthiessen, C. (1996).Tense in English seen through systemicfunctional theory. M. Berry; C.S Butler; R.P. Fawcett; G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: systemic functional interpretations içinde (ss. 431-499). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Onega, S. ve Landa, J. (1996). Introduction. S. Onega ve J. Landa. (Eds.), Narratology içinde. New York ve London, Longman.
Abstract
Geçmişi ‘yaşama döndürmek’ten öte, insanların yaptıklarıyla, yazıya dökülenler arasındaki mesafeyi arttırmayı amaçlayan tarihi aktaran tarih metinlerinde kullanılan tarih teknolojisi, bu metinleri anlatı sözbilimsel kipinden savlama sözbilimsel kipine, bir başka deyişle somuttan soyuta doğru dönüştürmektedir. Bu çalışma da tarih teknolojisinin bu dönüştürme işlevinin, soyutlamanın en sık kullanılan dilsel kodlayıcısı olan adlaştırma yapıları temel alınarak belirlenip belirlenemeyeceğini sorgulamaktır. Adlaştırma yapılarının kullanım sıklıkları ve işlevleri göz önünde bulundurularak tarih metinlerinde yeğlenen sözbilimsel kipi, Dizgeci İşlevsel Dilbilgisi çerçevesinde ve Türkiyede İlköğretim (6. sınıf) ve Ortaöğretim düzeyinde (Lise 3. sınıf) okutulan tarih metinleri kapsamında belirlemeyi amaçlayan çalışmamız, adlaştırmanın sözbilimsel kiplerin belirlenmesinde bir ölçüt olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir.
Keywords
Anahtar Sözcükler: Tarih Söylemi Tarih Teknolojisi Anlatı Sözbilimsel kipi Savlama sözbilimsel kipi Adlaştırma Geçişlilik Dizgesi
References
- Burke, P. (1991). New Perspectives on Historical Writing. Oxford, U.K.: Polity Press. Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. F. Christie ve J.R. Martin (Ed.), Genre and Institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school içinde (ss. 67-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex . Coffin, C. (2000). History as Discourse: Construals of Time, Cause and Appraisal. Doktora Tezi, University of New South Wales. Coffin, C. (2004). Learning to write history: The role of causality. Written Communication,21: 261– 2 Coffin, C. (2006).Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 4: 413–29. Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. Eggins, S., Wignell, P., ve Martin, J. R. (1993).The discourse of history: Distancing the recoverable past. M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice içinde (ss. 75-109). London: Pinter.
- Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London ve New York: Routledge. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1994), Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, U.K.: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. (1998). Things and Relations: Regrammaticing experience as technical knowledge. J. R. Martin ve R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science içinde (ss. 185-235). London: Routledge. Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge. Martin, J.R. (1991). Nominalization in science and Humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics içinde (ss. 307-337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philedelphia: John Benjamins. Martin, J.R. (1999).Mentoring semogenesis: ‘Genre-based’ literacy pedagogy, F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Shaping of Conciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes içinde (ss. 123-155). London: Continuum. Matthiessen, C. (1996).Tense in English seen through systemicfunctional theory. M. Berry; C.S Butler; R.P. Fawcett; G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: systemic functional interpretations içinde (ss. 431-499). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Onega, S. ve Landa, J. (1996). Introduction. S. Onega ve J. Landa. (Eds.), Narratology içinde. New York ve London, Longman.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 1, 2013 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2014 Volume: 2014 Issue: XVII |