Citation Number
4
Views
58
Downloands
17
Bu çalışmada Türkiye Türkçesinde ara ve orta kavramlarının dilbilgisel işaretleyicileri gözlem ve tahmin yoluyla tespit edilmiş ve bu işaretleyiciler yapısal ve anlamsal özellikleri bakımından değerlendirilmiştir. Yapısal çözümleme işaretlerin söz(cük), söz öbeği, cümle veya söz kalıbı olup olmadıkları, işaretleyicilerde köken dillerin neler olduğu bakımlarından yapılmıştır. Çalışmada zaman zaman “kavram çözümlemesi” ifadesi kullanılsa da esasında kavramın çözülemeyeceği artık bilim çevrelerinde genel bir görüş halini almıştır. Buna göre, kavramlar ancak parçalara bölünerek ve dilbilgisel işaretleri üzerinden anlamsal olarak çözülebilir. Burada da ara ve orta kavramları anlambirimcik çözümleme yöntemiyle ve Martorella’nın “kavram çözümleme” modelinden yararlanarak incelenmiştir. Kavramların en güçlü dilbilgisel işaretleyicileri ara ve orta sözcükleri ve bunların türevleridir. Ancak, kavramlar uzak veya yakın başka kavram alanlarının üyeleriyle de kısmi ve dolaylı olarak temsil edilebilmektedir ( iç, normal, standart, genel, ılıman, kabul edilebilir vb.). Bu ve benzeri kavramların birtakım dilbilgisel işaretleyicilerle betimlenmesi bir toplumun zihin yapısı konusunda da fikir verir. Bu çalışmada, Türklerin neyi “arada” veya “ortada” düşündükleri tam olarak tespit edilmemiş olmakla birlikte, ara(da) ve orta(da) kavramlarını hangi dış dünya gerçeklikleri bağlamında oluşturdukları genel hatlarıyla ortaya konmuştur. Buna göre Türkler iyi-kötü, yüksek-alçak, büyük-küçük, yeni-eski, var-yok, siyah-beyaz, az-çok, belirli-belirsiz, başlangıç-bitiş, ilk-son vb. kavram çiftlerini “aralayabilmekte” veya bu kavram çiftlerini “ortalayabilmekte”dirler. “Aralanan” ve “ortalanan” kavramlar genellikle niceliksel kavramlar değil, nitelikler ve durumlardır.
In this study, the grammar markers of the consequences of between and the middle in Turkish have been determined through observation and prediction and these markers were evaluated in terms of structural and semantic features. Structural analysis was made in terms of whether the markers are words, phrases, sentences or fixwd expressions, and what are the languages of origin in the markers. Even though the term "concept analysis" was sometimes used in the study, the fact that the concept could not be solved has become a general view in scientific circles. Accordingly, the concepts can be solved semantically only by dividing them into pieces and through their grammar markers. Here, the concepts of between and mid are examined by semic analysis method and by using Martorella's "concept analysis" model. The strongest grammatical markers of concepts in Turkish are ara and middle words and their derivatives. However, concepts can be represented partially and indirectly with members of other distant or close concept areas (internal "internal", normal "normal", standard "standard", general "general", moderate "temperate", acceptable "acceptable" etc.). Describing these and similar concepts with some grammatical markers also gives an idea about the mind structure of a society. In this study, it has not been determined exactly what the Turks think “in between” or “in the middle”, but in which context they have created the concepts of between and mid(dle) in the context of external world realities. According to this, Turks can "space" concept pairs of good-bad, high-low, big-small, new-old, have-none, black-white, more-less, certain-ambiguous, start-finish, first-end etc. or they can "center" these pairs of concepts. The "spaced" and "centered" concepts are usually not quantitative concepts, but qualitative concepts and situations.
In this study, grammatical markers of the consepts of between and the mid in Turkish have been determined through observation and prediction and these markers were evaluated in terms of structural and semantic features. Structural analysis was made in terms of whether the markers are words, phrases, sentences or fixwd expressions, and what are the languages of origin in the markers. Even though the term “concept analysis” was sometimes used in the study, the fact that the concept could not be solved has become a general view in scientific circles. Accordingly, the concepts can be solved semantically only by dividing them into pieces and through their grammatical markers. Here, the concepts of between and mid are examined by semic analysis method and by using Martorella's “concept analysis” model. The strongest grammatical markers of concepts in Turkish are ara and orta words and their derivatives. However, concepts can be represented partially and indirectly with members of other distant or close concept areas (iç “internal”, normal “normal”, standart “standard”, genel “general”, ılıman “temperate”, kabul edilebilir “acceptable” etc.). Describing these and similar concepts with some grammatical markers also gives an idea about the mind structure of a society. In this study, it has not been determined exactly what the Turks think “in between” or “in the middle”, but in which context they have created the concepts of (ın) between and mid(dle) in the context of external world realities. According to this, Turks can “space” concept pairs of good-bad, high-low, big-small, new-old, have-none, black-white, more-less, certain-ambiguous, start-finish, first-end etc. or they can “center” these pairs of concepts. The “spaced” and “centered” concepts are usually not quantitave concepts, but qualitative concepts and situations.
Field : Eğitim Bilimleri; Güzel Sanatlar; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Journal Type : Ulusal
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
