İLETİŞİMSEL EDİNÇ VE YABANCI DİL OLARAK TÜRKÇEDE DİLBİLGİSİ ÖĞRETİMİ
Yabancı dil öğretiminin amacı, dil öğrenenlerin kısa sürede ve kalıcı şekilde dili anlamasını ve kullanmasını sağlamaktır. Dil öğretiminde etkililiği ve verimliliği sağlamak için hedef dildeki yapıların öğretimi önem taşımaktadır. Dilbilgisi öğretimi açık ya da örtük yolla gerçekleştirilebilir ancak önemli olan öğretimin uygun bağlamlarla yapılmasıdır. Dilbilgisi öğretiminin bağlamdan bağımsız yapılması, öğreniciye sınıf içinde öğrendiklerini sınıf dışında nasıl kullanacağı yönünde bilgi sağlamaz. Öğrenicinin uygun bağlamda uygun dil kullanımını sağlamak, girdilerin iletişimsel edince yönelik olarak sunulmasıyla mümkün olabilir. Dilbilimin dolayısıyla yabancı dil öğretiminin önemli kavramlarından olan iletişimsel edinç ve iletişimsel edinç bileşenleri dilbilgisi öğretimi için bağlamın oluşturulmasında yol gösterici olarak kullanılabilecek ölçütler sağlamaktadır. İletişimsel edinç ve dilbilgisi öğretiminde kullanılan üç boyutlu bulunmaktadır. dilbilgisi şemasının birbirileriyle örtüştüğü noktalar bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, bağlam oluşturma aşamasında göz önünde bulundurulması gereken bileşenler tartışılmaktadır. Kavramlar ortaya atıldıkları dönemden günümüze kadar ele alınış biçimleriyle açıklanmış ve üç boyutlu dilbilgisi şemasında yer alan biçim-anlam-kullanım bölümleri, iletişimsel edinç bileşenlerinden dilsel edinç, sosyokültürel edinç, söylem edinci, dilsel edinç, söz örüntüsü edinci, etkileşimsel edinç ve stratejik edinç ile eşleştirilmiştir. Bileşenlerin birebiriyle olan ilişkileri şemalaştırılarak somutlaştırılmış ve taslak bir içerikle bağlam oluşturmada nasıl yol gösterici olarak kullanılabilecekleri örneklendirilmiştir. İletişimsel edinç ve dilbilgisi öğretiminin somut olarak bağlantılandırılabilmesi için yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimine yönelik bir örnek içeriğe yer verilmiştir. "eylem+Abil+ir MI+kişi eki?" yapısı seçilmiş ve karşılıklı konuşma bağlamında izin alma işleviyle kullanımına yönelik taslak oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AND GRAMMAR TEACHING IN THE FIELD OF TURKISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Foreign language education aims to ensure that learners understand and use the language permanently in a short period. Teaching the structures of the target language is accorded great importance for establishing effectiveness and efficiency in language education. Grammar education may be conducted in explicit or implicit ways, although the critical aspect pertains to providing instructions in appropriate contexts. Teaching grammar independent of the context does not provide students information regarding the practical use of concepts learnt in class. Student’s use of pertinent language in an appropriate context can only be possible by presenting inputs with respect to communicative competence. The communicative competence and the components of communicative competence that are valuable concepts for linguistics and therefore foreign language education, which offer criteria that may be used as guides in the creation of context for grammar education. There are intersection points, where three-dimensional grammar framework overlaps with grammar education and communicative competence. The present study discussed the components, which shall be considered during the context creation phase. Concepts were explained in a way they have been discussed since the time of their conception and were associated with form-meaning-use units of the three dimensional grammar framework and with linguistic competence, sociocultural competence, discourse competence, formulaic competence, interactional competence, and strategic competence of communicative competence. The relationships of components were concretized by arranging a scheme and were exemplified using the components as a guide for creating a context with a model content. To provide a concrete association between communicative competence and grammar education, an example of learning Turkish as a foreign language was included. The “eylem+Abil+ir MI+kişi eki?” structure was chosen and an attempt was made to construct a template that requested permission in the context of a conversation. The structure was defined in terms of sociocultural competence, discourse competence, linguistic competence, formulaic competence, and interactional competence and was placed in a three-dimensional grammar framework. To provide a concrete association between communicative competence and grammar education, an example of learning Turkish as a foreign language was included. The “eylem+Abil+ir MI+kişi eki?” structure was chosen and an attempt was made to construct a template that requested permission in the context of a conversation.As theories of learning and language develop, a change in terms of foreign language teaching is observed. The answers to the question about “the place of grammar in foreign language education” has begun to place particular emphasis on the concept of “context” with increasing arguments about communicative approach and the need for not considering language as an asocial phenomenon. Teaching grammar independent of the context does not provide students information regarding the practical use of concepts learnt in class. Student’s use of pertinent language in an appropriate context can only be possible by presenting inputs with respect to communicative competence. With this aim, the preparation stages can be approached by using a three dimensional grammar framework and the components of communicative competence. This study discusses the points at which the components of three-dimensional grammar overlap with the components of communicative competence and suggests a template that can be employed for teaching Turkish as a foreign language. The structure defined with qualities of form, meaning, and use can be presented to the student as part of the activities that will develop communicative competence. The concept of communicative competence, which highlights the importance of contextual language use and that of language not being an asocial phenomenon, has been included in the scheme of foreign language education. The three-dimensional grammar framework, which ensures the consideration of descriptions that are relevant to the structures in a systematic manner, is employed in grammar education. As per the threedimensional framework, the structures are considered within the purview of three main titles: form, meaning, and use; moreover, each unit is examined under these titles. Form or structure includes formal and syntactic patterns. Meaning implies lexical or grammatical meaning. Use contains usage information of the unit in linguistic, textual, and social contexts. When we view the three-dimensional grammar framework, we realize that it comprises form–use, meaning–use, and form–use relationships. It can be deliberated that at least two titles have an absolute relationship, but in fact, these paired relationships indicate that all three elements are related to each other. While the structures are examined under these titles, considering the components of communicative competence ensures that the limits in terms of the context that requires creation are defined. Communicative competence is defined as knowing how to: use the language for different purposes and functions, alter the language according to the context and participants, understand or create different text types, sustain communication despite the lack of grammar knowledge. Communicative competence has been discussed under various subtopics since the day it was first proposed. The communicative competence model, which is regarded to be the basis in this study, includes components of sociocultural competence, discourse competence, linguistic competence, formulaic competence, interactional competence, and strategic competence. Each component has its own subtopic. The sociocultural competence includes information about how a message can be delivered in the most appropriate form in the social and cultural context, encompassing contextual factors such as age, gender, social position, social distance, and relationship between individual participants. Among this, stylistic appropriateness such as politeness strategies, register, and cultural factors such as the background information about the target language for its native speakers are also considered within sociocultural competence. Discourse competence conveys cohesion information that is provided by elements such as anaphora/cataphora and conjunctions. The diexis provided by such personal pronouns, time expressions, textual transmissions; the coherence with situations regarding the general structuring of the text such as organizing the old and the new information; and the generic structure related to the type of the text such as narrative and interview are parts of discourse competence. Furthermore, linguistic competence, similar to the other communicative competence models, includes phonology, vocabulary, morphology, and syntactic information. A component that was included with this model is part of formulaic competence. It was discussed in a larger context than vocabulary, and it involves routines, collocations, idioms and lexical frames. Interactional competence includes actional competence, which includes information about how speech-acts are used, conversational competence, which includes information about how the conversation begins, sustains and concludes, and also nonverbal/paralinguistic competence, which is the competence of nonlinguistic units such as kinesics and proxemics. Strategic competence, on the other hand, comprises subcomponents such as cognitive, metacognitive, memory-related achievement, stalling, and self-monitoring, and interaction and social competence. Although at least two components are in an absolute relationship with each other in the communicative competence model, all the components are connected to each other through discourse competence, which is at the center. In the entire sociocultural structure, linguistic and lexical features differ depending on the general structure of the text. It is certain that linguistic competence is required for all components to be realized. Discourse competence forms the relationship between linguistic competence and other components of the communicative competence. The general structure of the text is a subcomponent of the discourse competence. In this case, discourse competence is required to enable the creation of any type of written or spoken text. There are intersection points, where three-dimensional grammar framework used in grammar education overlap with communicative competence. This form of three-dimensional grammar framework can be linked with linguistic competence. The meaning in the framework can be linked with another component of communicative competence with respect to the linguistic unit. Since it is related to form and use, when it is examined in the framework of competence components, it is observed that meaning is directly linked with linguistic competence, formulaic competence coupled with use, discourse competence, and interactional and sociocultural competence. The information about usage is unattainable without reviewing the meaning. When evaluated from this perspective, the meaning is in consonance with all the components of communicative competence. Whatsoever may be the aim in teaching a linguistic unit for a foreign language, developing the components while forming a relationship between the competence component and other components will result in the successful use of language. To provide a concrete association between communicative competence and grammar education, an example of learning Turkish as a foreign language was included. The “eylem+Abil+ir MI+kişi eki?” structure was chosen and an attempt was made to construct a template that requested permission in the context of a conversation. The structure was defined in terms of sociocultural competence, discourse competence, linguistic competence, formulaic competence, and interactional competence and was placed in a three-dimensional grammar framework. This demonstration was arranged to demonstrate what needs to be considered during the process of describing the structure before preparing materials for the structure. In other words, the conditions that need to be dealt with while creating a context were revealed. The proposal offered for course materials to be prepared is a suggested template for other linguistic units. New context and materials can be created while considering the components of communicative competence for various linguistic units in later studies.
Aktaş, T. (2005). Yabancı Dil Öğretiminde İletişimsel Yeti. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 1/1 89-100
Bagarić, V. (2007). “Defining Communicative Competence”. Metodika. 8(1), 94-103.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundumantel Consideration in Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Test. Oxford University Press.
Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing”. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy”. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt, (Ed). Language and Communication (pp.2-27). London: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). “Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in Language Teaching”. In E. A. Soler & M.P.S. Jordà (Ed). Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 41-57). Springer.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., Thurrell, S. (1995). “Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications”. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Cem, A. (2005). “Dilbilgisi Öğretiminde Biçim-Anlam-Kullanım Üçlüsü: Ders Malzemesi Hazırlama ve Uygulama Önerisi”. Dil Dergisi. 128: 7-24
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. M.I.T. Press.
Elbir, B., Aka, F. (2015) Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Kültür Aktarımına Yönelik Yapılan Çalışmaların Değerlendirilmesi, Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/12 Summer 2015, p. 371-386, ISSN: 1308-2140, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8425, ANKARA-TURKEY
Ellis, R. (2016). “Anniversary article Focus on Form: A Critical review”. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405-428.
Ellis, R. (2001). “Investigating form focused instruction.” In R. Ellis (Ed). Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning (pp. 1-46). Malden: Blackwell Publising.
Erdem M.D., Gün, M., Şengül, M., Şimşek, R., (2015). Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Kullanılan Okuma Metinlerinin Öğretim Elemanlarınca Diller İçin Avrupa Ortak Başvuru Metni ve İşlevsel Metin Özellikleri Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi, Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/3 Winter 2015, p. 455-476, ISSN: 1308-2140, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8020, ANKARA-TURKEY.
Gökdayı, H. (2016). Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Sözcük Öğretimi ve Kalıp Sözler, Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 11/19 Fall 2016, p. 379-394, ISSN: 1308-2140, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11131, ANKARA-TURKEY
Günay, V. D., Fidan, Çetin, B., Yıldız, F. (2012). İzmir Yabancılar için Türkçe Ders Kitabı A2. İstanbul: Papatya Yayıncılık.
Günay, V. D., Fidan, Çetin, B., Yıldız, F. (2012). İzmir Yabancılar için Türkçe Alıştırma Kitabı A2. İstanbul: Papatya Yayıncılık.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English Language Teaching. UK: Longman.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). “On Communicative Competence”. In J. B. Pride & Holmes (Ed) Sociolinguistics. Selected Reading (part 2) (pp.269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). “Teaching Grammar”. In M. Celce-Murcia, & D. M. Brinton, M.A Snow (Ed). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 256-270). USA: National Geographic Learning.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1991). “Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology”. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberge & C. Kramsch (Ed). Foreign Language Research Incross-Cultural Perspective.(pp. 3952) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nassaji, H.& Fotos, S. (2004). “Current Developments in Research on The Teaching Of Grammar”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126–145.
Nassaji, H.& Fotos, S. (2007). “Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education”. In S. Fotos& H. Nassaji (Ed). Form-Focused Instruction and Teacher Education Studies on Honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15).Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1998). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Newbury House Teacher Development.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). “There is no best method-Why?” TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 161-176.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savingnon, S. J. (1991). “Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art”. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
Sinor, M. (2002). “From communicative competence to language awareness: An outline of language teaching principles”. Crossing Boundaries 1/3, 116-125.
Thornbury, S. (1999) How to Teach Grammar. Cambridge. CUP
Williams, J. (1995). “Focus on Form in Communicative Language Teaching: Research Findings and The Classroom Teacher.” TESOL Journal, 4(4), 12-16.
Williams, J. (2005). “Form-focused instruction”. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yıldırım, A. Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.