Avrupa Bağlamında Türkiye, İspanya Ve Portekiz’in Ana Vatan Dili Eğitim Politikalarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma Türkiye, İspanya ve Portekiz’in yurt dışında yaşayan vatandaşlarının çocuklarına yönelik ana vatan dili eğitim politikalarını, bu üç ülkenin resmî belgeleri üzerinden karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır Araştırmada ana vatan dili eğitimine ilişkin politikaların hangi kurumsal ve ideolojik temeller üzerine inşa edildiği, uygulama süreçlerinin nasıl yapılandırıldığı ve öğrenci, öğretmen ile veli gibi temel paydaşların bu süreçlerde nasıl konumlandırıldığı ortaya konulmuştur. Bu doğrultuda Türkiye, İspanya ve Portekiz’e ait toplam on resmî belge içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. İçerik analizi sonucu geliştirilen Ana Vatan Dili Eğitimi Politika Çerçevesi esas alınarak ülkelerin dil ideolojileri ile pedagojik uygulamalarını karşılaştırmalı olarak betimlenmektedir. Bulgular, Türkiye’nin millî kimlik ve kültürel süreklilik temelli merkezî bir yaklaşım benimsediğini; İspanya’nın kültürlerarası yeterlilik ve katılımcı yönetim odaklı dışa dönük bir strateji izlediğini; Portekiz’in ise dilin küresel çapta yayılmasını hedefleyen daha esnek bir perspektif sunduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, etkili ana vatan dili politikalarının kurumsal vizyon, esnek uygulama yapısı ve çoğul kimliklere duyarlı pedagojik bileşenleri dengeli biçimde bütünleştirmesi gerektiğini ortaya koyarak alana politika temelli bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ana vatan dili
• yurt dışı
• dil politikası
• Türkiye
• İspanya
• Portekiz

A Comparative Analysis of Homeland Language Education Policies of Türkiye, Spain, and Portugal in the Context of Europe

Öz

This study aimed to comparatively examine the homeland language education policies directed at the children of citizens living abroad in Türkiye, Spain, and Portugal through an analysis of official policy documents. The study explored the institutional and ideological foundations upon which these policies were constructed, the ways in which implementation processes were structured, and how key stakeholders such as students, teachers, and parents were positioned within these processes. To this end, a total of ten official policy documents from the three countries were analyzed through content analysis. Based on the findings of this analysis, a Framework for Homeland Language Education Policy was developed and used to comparatively describe national language ideologies and pedagogical practices of these countries The findings indicated that Türkiye adopted a centralized approach grounded in national identity and cultural continuity; Spain followed an outward-oriented strategy emphasizing intercultural competence and participatory governance; and Portugal presented a more flexible perspective oriented toward the global dissemination of its language. The study concluded that effective homeland language education policies required a balanced integration of institutional vision, flexible implementation structures, and pedagogical components sensitive to plural identities, thereby offering a policy-oriented framework for the field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Homeland language
• abroad
• language policy
• Türkiye
• Spain
• Portugal.

Kaynakça

1. Adler, A. ve Beyer, R. (2018). Languages and language policies in Germany. G. Stickel (Ed.), National language institutions and national language: Contributions to the EFNIL conference 2017 in Mannheim içinde (ss. 221-242). Budapeşte: Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
2. Akkari, A. ve Radhouane, M. (2022). Intercultural approaches to education: From theory to practice. Cham: Springer.
3. Álvarez Mella, H. (2020). Spanischsprachige migranten in Deutschland und Bildungsangebote für Spanisch als muttersprache. Nationalatlas Aktuell, 14(09), 5.
4. Álvarez Mella, H., Blattner, C. ve Gómez-Pavón Durán, A. (2023). Family expectations towards Spanish language maintenance and heritage language programs in Germany. Journal of World Languages, 9(1), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2022-0060.
5. Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x.
6. Avcı, M. ve Kurudayıoğlu, M. (2022). Türkçede iki dillilik çalışmalarının bibliyometrik analizi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(1), 252-265.
7. Bale, J. ve Kawaguchi, M. (2020). Heritage-language education policies, anti-racist activism, and discontinuity in 1970s and 1980s Toronto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 17(1), 5-25.
8. Beaudrie, S. M. (2015). Approaches to language variation: Goals and objectives of the Spanish heritage language syllabus. Heritage Language Journal, 12(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.12.1.1.

9. Beaudrie, S. M., Ducar, C. ve Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Education Create.
10. Bezcioğlu-Göktolga, İ. ve Yağmur, K. (2018). The impact of Dutch teachers on family language policy of Turkish immigrant parents. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 220-234.
11. Biesta, A., Priestley, M. ve Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640.
12. Bohnacker, U. (2023). Sweden's multilingual language policy through the lens of Turkish-heritage family language practices and beliefs. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 77-111.
13. Boletín Oficial del Estado. (2010). Orden EDU/3122/2010, de 23 de noviembre, por la que se regulan las enseñanzas complementarias de lengua y cultura españolas para alumnado español residente en el exterior y se establece el currículo de las mismas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 286, ss. 95728-95738. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2010-18555.
14. Boletín Oficial del Estado. (1993). Real Decreto 1027/1993, de 25 de junio, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación General Básica, Sección 2ª del Capítulo III. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 147, ss. 20613-20631. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1993-20613.
15. Carreira, M. ve Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the national heritage language survey: implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40-64.
16. Council of Europe (2020), Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, www.coe.int/lang-cefr.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
18. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
19. Direção-Geral da Educação. (2011). Quadro de referência para o ensino português no estrangeiro. https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/EEstrangeiro/2012_quarepe_docorientador.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
20. Doomernik, J. ve Bruquetas-Callejo, M. (2016). National immigration and integration policies in Europe since 1973. B. Garcés-Mascareñas ve R. Penninx (Ed.), Integration Processes and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors içinde (ss. 57-76). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
21. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R. ve Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22. Eurydice. (2019). Göçmen Kökenli Öğrencilerin Avrupa'daki Okullara Entegrasyonu - Ulusal Politikalar ve Önlemler. Lüksemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.
23. Ferre-Pérez, F., Ramos Méndez, C. ve Salaberri Ramiro, M. S. (2022). Analysis of the fostering and constraining factors for learners' participation in the Spanish Heritage Education Program ALCE in Germany: Proposals for improvement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(10), 3848-3863.
24. Flores, C. (2011). Differential effects of language attrition in the domains of verb placement and object expression. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 550-567.
25. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
26. Gabinete do Secretário de Estado Adjunto e da Educação. (2005). Despacho n.o 21 787/2005 (2.a série). Diário da República – II Série, n.o 200, 18 outubro 2005. https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/2s/2005/10/200000000/1484614852.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
27. García, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 601-605.
28. Gogolin, I. (2002). Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: A challenge for educational research and practice. European Educational Research Journal, 1(1), 123-138.
29. Gross, B., Hansen, A., McMonagle, S., Duarte, J., Jiménez, E. G., Szelei, N. ve Pinho, A. S. (2021). Expert evaluation on urgent research on heritage language education: A comparative study in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Journal of Home Language Research, 4(1), 1-16.
30. Guardado, M. (2002). Loss and maintenance of first language skills: Case studies of Hispanic families in Vancouver. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 341-363.
31. Giudici, A. ve Bühlmann, R. (2014). Unterricht in Heimatlicher Sprache und Kultur (HSK): Auswahl guter Praxis in der Schweiz. Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren (EDK).
32. Hidalgo, M. (1990). The emergence of standard Spanish in the American continent: Implications for Latin American dialectology. Language Problems & Language Planning, 14(1), 47-63.
33. Hornberger, N. ve Johnson, D. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509-532.
34. Imanova, D., Akzhigitova, A. ve Zabrodskaja, A. (2025). Language-in-education policy for English language teaching in public schools of Kazakhstan: Top-down vs. bottom-up approaches. Education Sciences, 15(1), 66.
35. Kalenderoğlu, İ. ve Zorluoğlu, V. Y. (2018). Çoklu zekâ kuramına göre yurt dışında yaşayan Türk çocuklarına Türkçe öğretimi ile ilgili öğretmen görüşleri. 21. Yüzyılda Eğitim ve Toplum / Education and Society in the 21st Century, 7(20), 577-601.
36. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L. ve Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. B. Van Patten ve J. Williams (Ed.), Theories in second language acquisition içinde (ss. 207-226). Routledge.
37. Lubińska, D. (2023). Aiming high in heritage language education: The case of de jure policy for complementary Polish State Schools abroad. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
38. Malone, M. E., Peyton, J. K. ve Kim, K. (2014). Assessment of heritage language learners: Issues and directions. T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore ve N. Liu (Ed.), Handbook of heritage, community, and Native American languages in the United States: Research, policy, and educational practice içinde (ss. 349-358). Routledge.
39. Martínez, G. (2007). Mexican Americans and Language: Del dicho al hecho. University of Arizona Press.
40. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
41. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkçe ve Türk Kültürü Dersi Öğretim Programı. https://yyegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_12/23155151_turkceveturkkulturudersi2024ogretimprogrami.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
42. Ministério da Educação. (2006). Decreto-Lei n.º 165/2006, de 11 de agosto: Estabelece o regime jurídico do ensino português no estrangeiro. Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 155. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/165-2006-538465 adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
43. Ministério da Educação da República Portuguesa. (2009). Decreto-Lei n.º 30/2009, de 3 de fevereiro: Estabelece o regime jurídico aplicável ao reconhecimento, pelo Estado Português, do ensino ministrado com currículo e programas portugueses em estabelecimentos de ensino de iniciativa privada situados fora do território nacional. Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 26. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/30-2009-601700 adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
44. Montrul, S. (2016). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 530-546.
45. Montrul, S. (2012). Is the heritage language like a second language? Eurosla Yearbook, 12, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.03mon.
46. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94-109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097996.
47. Parra, M. (2017). Resources for teaching Spanish as a heritage language. Informes Del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports.
48. Polinsky, M. ve Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: in the 'wild' and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395.
49. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196-213.
50. Rinke, E. ve Flores, C. (2021). Portuguese as heritage language in Germany-a linguistic perspective. Languages, 6(1), 10.
51. Secretaría de Estado de Educación. (2023). Resolución de la Secretaría de Estado de Educación por la que se dictan instrucciones para regular la organización y el funcionamiento de las enseñanzas complementarias de lengua y cultura españolas para el alumnado español residente en el exterior. https://www.stes-exterior.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023_03_06_instrucciones_ALCEs.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
52. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Tilbury, D. ve Henderson, K. (2003). Education for intercultural understanding in Australian schools: A review of its contribution to education for a sustainable future. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 19, 81-95.
54. Tiong, A. (2021). The Weight of Our Words: Language and Teacher Agency from the Perspective of Gee's 'Cultural Models'. The English Teacher, 50(1), 1-15.
55. Tran, A. (2008). Vietnamese language education in the United States. Language Culture and Curriculum, 21(3), 256-268.
56. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Resmî Gazete. (2021). Milletlerarası andlaşma. Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 31401, 20 Şubat 2021. https://lyon.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_10/09165633_2021022013.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
57. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Resmî Gazete. (2003). 2003/5753 sayılı Bakanlıklararası Ortak Kültür Komisyonunun çalışma esas ve usulleri ile bu komisyon tarafından yurt dışında görevlendirilecek personelin nitelikleri ile hak ve yükümlülüklerinin belirlenmesine ilişkin karar. Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 25157, 3 Temmuz 2003. https://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_08/17115451_BKK_Ortak_kultur_komisyonu.pdf adresinden 17.06.2026 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
58. Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized?. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410-426.
59. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
60. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526.
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Çev.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Wang, H. ve Hatoss, A. (2024). Language policy and planning for heritage language maintenance: A scoping review. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1-21.
63. Wiley, T. G. (2021). Heritage language planning and policy. The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics içinde (ss. 781-797). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Woolard, K. A. ve Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. R. E. Asher ve J. M. Y. Simpson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics içinde (Cilt 4, ss. 2000-2010). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
65. Xiao, Y. ve Wong, K. F. (2014). Exploring Heritage Language Anxiety: A Study of Chinese Heritage Language Learners. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 589-611.
66. Yağmur, K. (2011). First-language skills of bilingual Turkish immigrant children growing up in a Dutch submersion context. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 2011(212), 107-128.