Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

TÜRKÇE BOYUT SIFATLARININ ANLAMSAL GÖRÜNÜMLERI: “BÜYÜK” VE “KÜÇÜK”

Yıl 2022, Cilt 62, Sayı 1, 1 - 24, 25.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.1.1

Öz

Literal ve imgesel anlamlar bir sürerliliğin iki ucunu oluşturmaktadır ve bu iki anlam türü arasında keskin bir ayrımdan söz etmek mümkün değildir (Dirven, 2002; Gibbs & Colston, 2012; Radden, 2002). Böylesi bir sürerlilik, farklı imgesellik düzeylerini de içermektedir. Radden (2002) bu sürerliliği literal-metonimi-metafor sürerliliği olarak adlandırırken; Dirven (2002) sürerliliği kavramsal yakınlık ve kavramsal uzaklık karamlarına vurgu yaparak açıklamıştır. Bu çalışma, Türkçe büyük ve küçük sıfatlarının anlamsal görünümlerini Türk Ulusal Derlemini (TUD) kullanarak, Dirven (2002)’nin önerdiği literal-imgesel anlam derecelenmesine dayalı olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaca ulaşmak için, öncelikle sıfatların nitelediği ad türleri ve deneyimsel alanlar belirlenmiş; ardından literal-imgesel anlam sürerliliği üzerindeki anlamsal kategoriler sunulmuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları, büyük+ad kurulumlarının sıklıkla soyut adları nitelediği ve DEĞERLENDIRME deneyimsel alanıyla kullanıldığını; küçük+ad kurulumlarının ise en fazla canlı varlıkları nitelediği ve FIZIKSEL BOYUT deneyimsel alanıyla kullanıldığını göstermiştir. Her iki sıfata ait anlamsal kategoriler de literal-imgesel sürerliliği üzerinde literal, metonimi öncesi, metonimi, metonimi sonrası ve metaforik anlamlar olmak üzere beş başlık altında toplanmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, İ. & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish national corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul. Turkiye.
  • Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, (pp.75-111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. USA: Lawrence Erlabaum.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
  • Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994) The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language and understanding UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Colston, H. (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. UK: Cambridge University Press
  • Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Leech, G. (1975). Semantics. Great Britain: Penguin Books.
  • Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  • Radden G. & Kövecses Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
  • Saussure, F. (1998). Genel dilbilim dersleri. B. Vardar (Trans.). İstanbul: Multilingual.
  • Syrpa, G. (2017). From literal to Figurative Language: The case of “big” In Annalisa Baicchi and Erica Pinelli Cognitive modelling in language and discourse across cultures (pp.91-103) Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Turkish National Corpus (TNC). 15 June, 2018 Retrieved from https://v3.tnc.org.tr/tnc/about-tnc
  • Turkish Language Association, Dictionary of Turkish. (TDK). 26 August 2018 Retrieved from https://sozluk.gov.tr

THE SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF TURKISH DIMENSION ADJECTIVES “BÜYÜK (BIG)” AND “KÜÇÜK (SMALL)

Yıl 2022, Cilt 62, Sayı 1, 1 - 24, 25.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.1.1

Öz

Literal and figurative meanings are two ends of a continuum and we can not talk about a sharp distinction between these two meaning types (Dirven, 2002; Gibbs & Colston, 2012; Radden, 2002). Such a continuum exhibits different degrees of figurativity. Radden (2002) considers this as literal-metonymy-metaphor continuum; where Dirven (2002) focuses on conceptual closeness and conceptual distance on the continuum. This study aims to analyse the semantic aspects of Turkish adjectives büyük (big) and küçük (small) by referring to Turkish National Corpus (TNC) in the light of the gradation of literal-figurative meaning proposed by Dirven (2002). In order to reach this aim; first the noun types and experiential domains modified by the adjectives are analysed and then the semantic categories on the continuum are identified. The results of the study show that for büyük the most frequently used adj+noun constructions are abstract nouns and the most common experiential domain is EVALUATION. For küçük the most frequently used adj+noun constructions are animate entities and the most common experiential domain is PHYSICAL DIMENSION. The semantic categories for both adjectives display a continuum from literal to figurative with literal, pre-metonymic, metonymic, post-metonymic and metaphoric meanings.

Kaynakça

  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, İ. & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish national corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul. Turkiye.
  • Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, (pp.75-111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. USA: Lawrence Erlabaum.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
  • Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994) The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language and understanding UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Colston, H. (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. UK: Cambridge University Press
  • Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Leech, G. (1975). Semantics. Great Britain: Penguin Books.
  • Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  • Radden G. & Kövecses Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
  • Saussure, F. (1998). Genel dilbilim dersleri. B. Vardar (Trans.). İstanbul: Multilingual.
  • Syrpa, G. (2017). From literal to Figurative Language: The case of “big” In Annalisa Baicchi and Erica Pinelli Cognitive modelling in language and discourse across cultures (pp.91-103) Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Turkish National Corpus (TNC). 15 June, 2018 Retrieved from https://v3.tnc.org.tr/tnc/about-tnc
  • Turkish Language Association, Dictionary of Turkish. (TDK). 26 August 2018 Retrieved from https://sozluk.gov.tr

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dil ve Dil Bilim
Yayınlanma Tarihi Yaz
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Elif ARICA AKKOK> (Sorumlu Yazar)
Ankara Üniversitesi
Türkiye


Yanghee LEE Bu kişi benim
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
0000-0002-8948-9281
South Korea

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 22 Haziran 2022
Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Haziran 2022
Kabul Tarihi 18 Şubat 2022
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022, Cilt 62, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Arıca Akkok, E. & Lee, Y. (2022). THE SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF TURKISH DIMENSION ADJECTIVES “BÜYÜK (BIG)” AND “KÜÇÜK (SMALL) . Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi , 62 (1) , 1-24 . DOI: 10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.1.1

Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.