Dile Bilişsel Bir Yaklaşım: Yapı Dilbilgisi

Abstract

Bu makale, dilin yalnızca biçimsel kurallar bütünü olmadığını, bilişsel süreçler, toplumsal etkileşim ve kullanım sıklığı gibi faktörlerle şekillenen dinamik bir yapı olduğunu savunan Yapı Dilbilgisi yaklaşımını ele almaktadır. Çalışma, özellikle çocuk dil edinimi süreci üzerinden dilsel yapıların nasıl berkitildiğini, gelenekselleştiğini ve zihinsel temsillere dönüştüğünü örneklerle açıklamaktadır. Yapı Dilbilgisi, biçim-anlam eşleşmeleri temelinde, dildeki tüm ifadeleri—ister deyim ister kalıp, isterse dilbilgisel yapı olsun—birer yapı olarak kabul eder ve çekirdek-çevre ayrımını reddeder. Bu yaklaşım, üretici dilbilgisinin soyut kural modellerine alternatif olarak, dilin işleyişini kullanım temelli bir perspektiften açıklamayı hedefler. Makalede, Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi’nden alınan verilerle oluşturulan örnek yapılar analiz edilmiştir. Bildirim cümleleri, eylem yapıları, şahıs ve zaman ekleri, ad öbeği yapıları gibi farklı karmaşıklık düzeylerindeki dilsel yapılar incelenmiştir. Ayrıca yapıların kavramsal birleşim süreci ve sözlükçe-dilbilgisi sürekliliği çerçevesinde teorik açıklamalar sunulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, Yapı Dilbilgisi’nin dilin edinimi, temsili ve kullanımı bağlamında bilişsel ve işlevsel temellere dayalı güçlü bir kuramsal çerçeve sunduğu ortaya koyulmuştur.

Keywords

• Yapı Dilbilgisi
• Bilişsel Dilbilim
• Kullanım Sıklığı
• Dil Edinimi
• Biçim-Anlam Eşleşmesi

A Cognitive Approach to Language: Construction Grammar

Abstract

This article discusses the Construction Grammar approach, which argues that language is not merely a set of formal rules but a dynamic system shaped by cognitive processes, social interaction, and usage frequency. The study explains, through the process of child language acquisition, how linguistic constructions are entrenched, conventionalized, and transformed into mental representations. Construction Grammar considers all linguistic expressions—whether idioms, patterns, or grammatical structures—as constructions based on form-meaning pairings, rejecting the core-periphery distinction. As an alternative to the abstract rule-based models of generative grammar, this approach seeks to explain language functioning from a usage-based perspective. The article analyzes sample constructions drawn from the Turkish National Corpus, focusing on sentence structures, verb patterns, person and tense markers, and noun phrase constructions of varying complexity. Furthermore, the study presents theoretical explanations regarding conceptual blending and the lexicon-grammar continuum. In conclusion, Construction Grammar is shown to offer a robust theoretical framework grounded in cognitive and functional principles for understanding, acquiring, and representing language.

Keywords

• Construction Grammar
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Usage Frequency
• Language Acquisition
• Form-Meaning Mapping

References

1. Ackerman, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (1996). Constraints on adjectival past participles. A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language içinde (1-20). CSLI Publications.
2. Akkuş, M. (2019). A usage-based investigation of converbial constructions in heritage speakers Turkish living in the Netherlands [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
3. Boas, H. C. 2011. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von resultativkonstruktionen. Stefan Engelberg, K. Proost & A. Holler (Ed.), Sprachliches wissen zwischen lexikon und grammatik içinde (37–69). De Gruyter.
4. Broccias, C. (2013). Cognitive Grammar. T. Hoffmann & G.Trousdale (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (191-210). Oxford University Press.
5. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
6. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
7. Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton.
8. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.

9. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Readings in English transformational grammar içinde (184–221). Blaisdell.
10. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger.
11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. MIT Press.
12. Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. University of Chicago Press,.
13. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
14. Croft, W. (2020). Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Brill.
15. Dabrowska, E., & Marcin S. (2006). Polish children’s productivity with case marking: The role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language 33(3), 559–597.
16. Dancygier, B. (2017). The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
17. Diessel, H. (2013). Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. T. Hoffmann & G.Trousdale (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar içinde (347–364). Oxford University Press.
18. Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism. Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41-63.
19. Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking & connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Ed.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition içinde (63–103). Blackwell.
20. Fauconnier, G. (1985), Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. MIT Press.
21. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. E. Bach & R T. Harms (Ed.), Universals in Linguistic Theory içinde (1–88). Rinehart & Winston.
22. Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Scenes-and-frames semantics. A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing içinde (55–81). North-Holland.
23. Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). The case for case reopened. P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Ed.), Syntax and semantics Vol. 8: Grammatical relations içinde (59–81). Academic Press.
24. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. Berkeley Linguistic Society 11, 73–86.
25. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538.
26. Fried, M. (2015). Construction grammar. A. Alexiadou & T. Kiss (Ed.), Syntax – theory and analysis: An international handbook içinde (974–1003). Mouton De Gruyter.
27. Fried, M., & Östman, J. (2004). Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective. Benjamins.
28. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2010). Turkish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
29. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
30. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.
31. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
32. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
33. Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. T. Hoffmann & G.Trousdale (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar içinde (15–31). Oxford University Press.
34. Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
35. Goldberg, A. E., & Ray J. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568.
36. Goldberg, A. E., & Thomas H. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics 59(1), 285–318.
37. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200.
38. Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T. (2024). A construction grammar of the English language. De Gruyter Mouton.
39. Hoffmann T., & Trousdale G. (2013). Construction grammar: Introduction. T. Hoffmann & G.Trousdale (Ed,).The Oxford handbook of construction grammar içinde (1-12). Oxford University Press.
40. Hoffmann, T. (2020). What would it take us to abandon construction grammar? falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34(1), 148-160.
41. İmer, K., Kocaman, A., & Özsoy, A. S. (2011). Dilbilim sözlüğü. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
42. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
43. Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic. Cambridge University Press.
44. Kara, F. (2010). Bil- tasvir fiilinin işlevleri, Journal of Turkish Studies, 6(1), 1421-1438.
45. Korkmaz, Z. (2009). Türkiye Türkçesi grameri: Şekil bilgisi. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
46. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
47. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press.
48. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol. 1 theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
49. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol. 2 descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
50. Langacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
51. Langacker, R. W. (2008b). The relevance of cognitive grammar for language pedagogy. S. de Knop & T. Rycker (Ed.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar içinde (7–35). De Gruyter.
52. Langacker, R. W. (2009). Constructions in cognitive grammar. R. W. Langacker (Ed.), investigations in cognitive grammar içinde (1–39). Mouton De Gruyter.
53. Langacker, R. W. (2020). Trees, assemblies, chains and windows. Constructions and Frames 12(1), 8–55.
54. Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67.
55. Ordines, P. (2022). Comparative constructional idioms: A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar: A multilingual approach içinde (29-52). De Gruyter
56. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.
57. Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
58. Şirin, İ. (2024). Nurullah Ataç'ın Günce I-II denemelerinde söz dizimi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi.
59. Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative types. M. Shibatani (Ed.), syntax and semantics, vol. 6: the grammar of causative constructions içinde (43-116). Academic Press.
60. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.
61. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. ll: Typology and process in concept structuring. The MIT Press.
62. Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Clarendon Press.
63. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
64. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. MIT Press.
65. Tomasello, M. (2009). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press.
66. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.
67. Üstünova, K. (2005). Türkçede zaman kavramı ve işlenişi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(9), 187–201.
68. Wasserscheidt, P. (2019). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Grundlagen, methoden, anwendungen. De Gruyter Mouton.
69. Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Academic Press Australia.
70. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. John Benjamins.