Kutadgu Bilig’de kör- “görmek”: Çok Anlamlılık, Metafor ve Gramerleşme

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 29, 59 - 76, 01.01.2015

Faruk Gökçe

Öz

Eldeki çalışma, Kutadgu Bilig’de sıklık değeri yüksek algı fiillerinden biri olan KÖR- fiilinin dilbilimsel incelemesi üzerine yoğunlaşmaktadır. İslamî Türk Edebiyatı’nın en hacimli eserlerinden biri olan Kutadgu Bilig’de KÖR- fiili, fiziksel görme vision anlamlarının dışında “anlamak, bilmek, idrâk etmek, tecrübe etmek” gibi çok anlamlı yapılar da sergilemektedir. Bu anlamda KÖR- algı fiili, kavramsal metafor değeriyle de öne çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca KÖR- algı fiili, Kutadgu Bilig’de gramerleşme süreçlerine de konu olabilmektedir. Özellikle “tecrübet et-” anlamıyla deneme kılınışı şeklinde adlandırabileceğimiz gramatikal bir gelişim, dikkati çekmektedir. Bütün bu gelişimler, GÖR- algı fiili üzerine yapılan tipoloji ve idrâk dilbilimi çalışmaları ışığında değerlendirilecektir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Algı fiilleri, görme/vizyon fiilleri, KÖR- algı fiili, çok anlamlılık, kavramsal metafor, gramerleşme, anlambilim, Eski Türkçe

Kör- “To See” in Kutadgu Bilig: Polysemy, Metaphor and Grammaticalization

Öz

This study focuses on a linguistic analysis of one of the perceptual verbs “kör-“ which has a high frequency rate in Kutadgu Bilig. In Kutadgu Bilig, one of the voluminous works of Islamic Turkish Literature, in addition to its conceptual meaning, “to see”, the verb “kör-”is polysemous with its meanings “to comprehend”, “to know”, and “to perceive”. At this point, this verb comes into prominence with its conceptual metaphorical value. Moreover, the perception verb “kör-”can be the subject of the grammaticalization process in Kutadgu Bilig. Especially with its meaning “to experience”, a grammatical improvement that can be labeled as “an experience action form” draws attention. All these improvements will be assessed in the light of the cognitive and typological studies on the perceptual verb KÖR-“to see” in Kutadgu Bilig

Anahtar Kelimeler

Perceptual verbs, vision verbs, verb “to see”, polysemy, conceptual metaphor, grammaticalization, semantics, Old Turkic

Kaynakça

• AIKHENVALD, A. Y. ve STORCH, A. (2013), “Linguistic Expression of Perception and Cognition” [Eds. Aikhenvald, A. Y. ve Storch, A.], Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture, Leiden: Brill Publication: 1-45.
• ALM-ARVIUS, C. (1993), The English Verb See: A Study in Multiple Meaning, Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
• ARAT, R., R. (1947), Kutadgu Bilig I: Metin, Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
• ………., (1985), Kutadgu Bilig II: Tercüme, Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
• ATA, A. (1993), “Kutadgu Bilig Üzerinde Bir Düzenleme Denemesi: Kör mü? Kür mü?”, Türkoloji Dergisi, XI: 301-308.
• BARCELONA, A. (2000), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• CULLEN, E., K. ve Van HORN, M., R (2011), “Brainstem Pathways and Premotor Control”, The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements [Eds. Liversedge , S., P., Gilchrist, I., D. ve Everling, S.]: 151-172.
• DEREKO, A. (2007), “Locke’da ve Lock-Öncesi Dil Felsefesinde Nesne-Ad İlişkisi”, Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi (SBARD), Sayı: 9: 97-120.
• EVANS, N., WILKINS, D. (2000), “In the Mind’s Ear: The Semantic Extension of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages”, Language, 76: 546-592.
• GISBORNE, N. (2010), The Event Structure of Perception Verbs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• GÖKÇE, F. (2014), “Altay Dillerinde Ortak Bir Gramatikal Morfem {Zarf-Fiil Eki / Mastar Eki + GÖR-}Üzerine”, Türkbilig: Türkoloji Araştırmaları, 2014/ 27: 1-12.
• ………., (2013), Gramerleşme Teorisi ve Türkçe Fiil Birleşmeleri, Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları.
• IBARRETXE-ANTUÑANO, I. (1999) Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A Cross-Linguistic Study, Phd Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
• ………., ve VALENZUELA-MANZANARES, J. (2010), “Language as a Complex Dynamic System: A View from Cognitive Linguistics”, Language as a Complex System [Eds. Bel-Enguix ve Jímenez-López], Cambridge Scholar Publishing: 3-39.
• JACKENDOFF, R., S. (1990), Semantic Structures, Cambridge: MIT Press.
• JOHNSON, C. (1999), “Metaphor vs. Conflation in the Acquisition of Polysemy”, [Eds. Hiraga, M. K., Sinha C., Wilcox, S.] Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cogntive Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company: 155-169.
• KNOWLES, M. ve MOON, R. (2006), Introducing Metaphor, London and New York: Routledge.
• KURŁOWICZ, J. (1965), “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories”, Diogenes, 51: 55-71.
• LAKOFF, G. (1993), “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, Metaphor and Thought Volume: 2: 202-251.
• ……….., ve JOHNSON, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• ……….., ve …….., (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Published by Basic Books.
• MAIR, C. (2004), “Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalization Theory”, [Eds. Lindquist, H., Mair, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
• MATISOFF, J. (1978), Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The Organic Approach to Lingustic Comparison, Philadelphia: Institute fort he Study of Human Issues.
• PEIRCE, C., S. (1998), Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893- 1913), Peirce Edition Project, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• RADDEN, G. (2002), “How Metonymic are Metaphors?”, Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparision and Contrast, [Eds. Dirven, R. ve Pörings, R.], Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 407-434.
• REIMER, N. (2010), Introducing Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• RUIZ, J., H. (2009), Understanding Tropes: At the Crossroads between Pragmatics and Cognition, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishing.
• STEEN, G., J. (2007), Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
• SWEETSER, E., V. (1990), From Etymology to Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ŞÇERBAK, A. M. (1987), Oçerki Po Sravnitel’noy Morfologii Tyurkskih Yazıkov, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Nauko.
• VANHOVE, M. (2008), “Semantic Assocations Between Sensory Modalities, Prehension and Mental Perceptions”, [Ed. Vanhove, M.] From Polysemy to Semantic Change, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
• VIBERG, A. (1983), “The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study”, Linguistics, 21: 123- 162.
• WHITT, R., J. (2010), Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German, Oxford: Peter Lang Publications.