Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe ve İngilizce Ders Kitaplarının Edimsel Yeti Gelişimi Açısından Karşılaştırılması / A Comparison of Turkish and English Textbooks as a Foreign Language in Terms of Pragmatic Competence Development

Küreselleşme etkisiyle iletişimin daha kolay hale geldiği 20. yüzyılda dil öğretiminde de iletişime yönelik çalışmalar hız kazanmıştır. 1970'li yıllara gelindiğinde ise iletişimsel yaklaşım dil öğretim yöntemlerinin merkezlerinden biri haline gelmiştir. İletişimsel yaklaşımın temel bileşenlerinden olan edimsel yetiye dair çalışmalar da bu doğrultuda gelişme göstermiştir ve alandaki yerini almıştır. İletişimsel yaklaşımın önemli bir parçası olan edimsel yeti, dünya üzerinde en yaygın öğretim malzemesi olan ders kitapları üzerinden incelendi. İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretimi kitapları, alanda en yaygın çalışmalara konu olduğundan Türkçenin yabancı dil olarak öğretimi kitaplarını kıyaslamak amacıyla seçildi. Bu çalışma, İngilizce ve Türkçe ders kitaplarını edimsel yeti gelişimi açısından karşılaştırarak aradaki benzerlik ve farklılıkları saptamak amacıyla yapılmıştır.

A Comparison of Turkish and English Textbooks as a Foreign Language in Terms of Pragmatic Competence Development

Studies on foreign language teaching aiming at communication development accelarated in the 20th century when transmission became easier due to globalisation. By the time it was  1970s, the communicative approach was already at the center of foreign language teaching methods. Studies on pragmatic competence, which is one of the fundamental components of the communicative approach, got the momentum parallel to those exercises. Pragmatic competence, which is one of the important aspects of the communicative approach, was examined through textbooks that are the most widespread teaching materials around the world. Being subject to the highest number of studies in the field, EFL books were chosen for comparison with Turkish as a Foreign Language books. This research was conducted so as to determine the differences and similarities by comparing Turkish and English textbooks in terms of pragmatic competence development. 

___

  • Akyol, B. & Yavuzkurt, T. (2016) Türkiye’de lisansüstü tezlerde eğitim denetimi. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 5(2), 908-926
  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bach, K. & Harnish R.M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Boran, G. (2003). Pragmatics in EFL teaching. Selçuk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 139-154.
  • Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. California: SAGE Publications.
  • Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing linguistics, Penguin, 18(1), 77.
  • Cunningsworth, A. (1995) Choosing your textbook. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
  • Demirezen, M. (1991). Pragmatics and language teaching. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6, 281-287.
  • Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives, (P. Cole ve J. L. Morgan ed.), Syntax and semantics, 3, New York: Academic Press.
  • Günay, V.D. (2015). İzmir. Papatya Yayıncılılık: İstanbul.
  • Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman ELT.
  • Hutchinson, T. & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal 48(4), 315-328.
  • Kansu-Yetkiner, N. (2009). Çeviribilim edimbilim ilişkisi üzerine, İzmir:İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, 6, 1-10.
  • Latham-Koenig, C.,Oxenden, C. (2013). English File. Oxford Press : Oxford.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Levinson, S.C. (2000). Pragmatik. Konzepte der Sprach Literaturwissenschaft. Neu Übersetzt von M. Wiese. Herg: P.Eisenberg/H.Kiesel. Niemeyer: Tübingen
  • Lin, M.X. (2008). Pragmatic failure in intercultural communication and English teaching in China. China Media Research, 4(3), 43-52.
  • McKinlay, S. & Hastings, B. (2012). New Success. Pearson Press: Harlow
  • Neuner, G, & Hunfeld, H.(1993). Methoden des fremdsprachlichen Deutschunterrichts. Fernstudieneinheit 4. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
  • Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Printice Hall.
  • Richards, J., Rodgers, S.T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. CUP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J. C. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Longman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An Essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Uzun, N.E. (2008). Yeni hitit 2. Ankara : TÖMER Yayıncılık.
  • Vasquez, C. & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master’s TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5-28.
  • Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-18