Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=EePbve77u_HoaMTjywAYEiGr0GBCN1yEJj909IvvDp4&_path=id%3D1308479%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçede içinde İlgecinin Çokanlamlılık Görünümleri: Bilişsel Dilbilim Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme

Year 2024, Volume: 35 Issue: 1, 61 - 87, 30.06.2024

Ayşe Eda Gündoğdu

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1308479

Abstract

Biçim ile anlamı tümleşik ve bağıntısal bir şemaya yerleştiren bilişsel dilbilim, çokanlamlılığı dilin doğal ve içkin bir özelliği olarak değerlendirmektedir. Böylece geleneksel görüşte dilbilgisel düzlemde incelenen işlev sözcükleri de farklı dinamikler üzerinden anlam temelli bir perspektifle araştırma konusu yapılabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı içinde ilgecinin çokanlamlılık görünümlerini bilişsel dilbilim paradigması çerçevesinde imge şematik dönüşümler, uzanımlar ve metaforik yapılanmalar kapsamında sahnelerarası ilişkilerle ortaya koymaktır. Betimsel bir niteliğe sahip araştırmanın veriseti, ilgecin bağlamsal görünümlerini kapsayan, Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi 3.0 derlem sorgusu aracılığıyla elde edilmiş 3500 bağımlı dizinden oluşmaktadır. Araştırma konusu ilgecin kapsama öntür uzanımıyla bağıntılı dört farklı imge şeması dönüşümüne uğradığı, bununla birlikte dört farklı periferik uzanıma sahip olduğu, ayrıca imge şemalarına metaforik yorumların da eklenmesiyle farklı anlamsal ağların elde edildiği ulaşılan önemli sonuçlar arasındadır.

Keywords

çokanlamlılık imge şeması metafor uzanım içinde

References

  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S.,Yıldız, İ. ve Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Doğan, M. U., Maegaard, B., Miriani, J., Odijk, J. ve Piperidis, S. (Yay. haz.) Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation içinde (LREC 2012). Türkiye.
  • Bellavia, E. (1996). The German uber. M. Pütz ve R. Dirven (Yay. haz.) The construal of space in language and thought içinde (ss. 73-107). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Brugman, C. (1981). Story of over. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kaliforniya Üniversitesi.
  • Brugman, C. ve Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive Typology and Lexical Networks. S. Small, G. Cottrell and M. Tannenhaus (Yay. haz.) Lexical ambiguity resolution: perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence içinde (ss. 477-507). Morgan Kaufman.
  • Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. T. E. Moore (Yay. haz.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language içinde (ss. 27-64). Academic Press.
  • Croft, W. Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. CUP.
  • Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell Pub.
  • Cuyckens, H. (1993). The Dutch Spatial Preposition in: A Cognitive-Semantic Analysis. C. Z. Wibbelt (Yay. haz.) The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language içinde (ss. 27–71). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up Physical and Mental Space into Conceptual Categories by Mean so English Prepositions. C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Yay haz.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language içinde (ss. 73–97). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Drozdowicz, A. (1998). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the english preposition in. Araştırma Tezi (M.Phil), Glasgow Üniversitesi.
  • Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Evans, V. (2010). From the Spatial to the Non-Spatial: The ‘State’ Lexical Concepts of in, on and at. V. Evans ve P. Chilton (Yay. haz.), Language, cognition & space içinde (ss. 215–248). Equinox.
  • Evans, V. ve Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Evans, V. ve Tyler, V. (2004). Spatial Experience, Lexical Structure and Motivation: The Case of in. G. Radden ve K. Panther (Yay. haz.) Studies in linguistic motivation içinde (ss. 157-192). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Geeraerts, D. (1992). The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 205–30.
  • Gibbs, R. W. ve. Colston, H.L. (1995). The cognitive psychological realityof image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 347–78.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2017). Embodiment. B. Dancygier (Yay. haz.) Cambridge handbook of cognitive grammar içinde (ss. 449–462). Cambridge University Press.
  • Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: an essential grammar. Routledge.
  • Gruber, J. S. (1976). Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. North-Holland Publishing Company.
  • Gündoğdu, A. E. (2020). Biçim sıfatlarında etkin alan kurulumları: yuvarlak sıfatı örneği. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 185-205.
  • Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Doktora Tezi. Kaliforniya Üniversitesi.
  • Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of the preposition in English. Cambridge University Press.
  • Huerta, B. L. (2009). The semantics of the Spanish prepositions en, a, and de: a cognitive approach. Doktora Tezi. Buffalo Üniversitesi.
  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
  • Jan, H. (2018). A Cognitive linguistics approach to explaining the polysemy of alā and fī in modern standard Arabic. Doktora Tezi. Georgetown Üniversitesi.
  • Jiang, C. ve Yang, K. (2021). Concepts and Conceptualization. X. Wen ve J. R. Taylor (Yay. haz.) The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 255-267). Routledge Press.
  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, M. (1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3-18.
  • Johnson, M. ve Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (3), 245-263.
  • Kang, Y. (2012). Cognitive linguistics approach to semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Doktora Tezi. Georgetown Üniversitesi.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis. Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.
  • Langacker R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
  • Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R.W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay. haz.) Cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 421-462). Oxford University Press.
  • Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H., ve Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Saeed, J. (2003). Semantics. Blackwell Publishing.
  • Smith, M. B. (1993). Cases as Conceptual Categories: Evidence from German. A. Geiger ve B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Yay. haz.) Conceptualization and mental processing in language içinde (ss. 531–565). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. Chicago Linguistic Society 21 (2), 293–337.
  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT Press.
  • Tavşancıl, E. ve Aslan, A. E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. Epsilon Yayınevi.
  • TDK. (2011). Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe sözlük. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Türker, E. (2005). Locative expressions in Korean and Turkish: a cognitive grammar approach. Doktora Tezi. Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Üniversitesi.
  • Ungerer, F. ve Schmid, H.(1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Longman.
  • Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial preposition: a case study from French. University of Chicago Press.
  • Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157–84.
  • Wen, X. ve Taylor, J.R. (2021). Cognitive Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect. X. Wen ve J. R. Taylor (Yay. haz.) The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 1-16). Routledge Press.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Why do we say in April, on Thursday, at 10 o’clock? In search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17(2), 437–454.
  • Winters, M.E. ve Nathan, G.S. (2020). Cognitive linguistics for linguists. Springer.

Polysemy Views of the Postposition içinde in Turkish: A Study in Cognitive Linguistics Framework

Year 2024, Volume: 35 Issue: 1, 61 - 87, 30.06.2024

Ayşe Eda Gündoğdu

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1308479

Abstract

Cognitive linguistics, which places form and meaning in an integrated and relational scheme, considers polysemy as a natural and inherent feature of language. Thus, function words, which are examined on the grammatical level in the traditional view, can also be researched with a meaning-based perspective through different dynamics. The aim of this study is to reveal the polysemy properties of the postposition içinde within the framework of cognitive linguistics paradigm, and to reveal the inter-scene relations within the scope of image schematic transformations, extensions, and metaphorical constructions. The dataset of the research, which has a descriptive nature, consists of 3500 concordances obtained through the Turkish National Corpus 3.0 corpus query, which includes the contextual views of the postposition. As a result, the postposition içinde is observed with four different image schema transformations related to the containment prototype extension, it also has four different peripheral extensions, and different semantic networks are obtained by adding metaphorical interpretations to the image schemas.

Keywords

polysemy image schema metaphor extension içinde

References

  • Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S.,Yıldız, İ. ve Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Doğan, M. U., Maegaard, B., Miriani, J., Odijk, J. ve Piperidis, S. (Yay. haz.) Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation içinde (LREC 2012). Türkiye.
  • Bellavia, E. (1996). The German uber. M. Pütz ve R. Dirven (Yay. haz.) The construal of space in language and thought içinde (ss. 73-107). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Brugman, C. (1981). Story of over. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kaliforniya Üniversitesi.
  • Brugman, C. ve Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive Typology and Lexical Networks. S. Small, G. Cottrell and M. Tannenhaus (Yay. haz.) Lexical ambiguity resolution: perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence içinde (ss. 477-507). Morgan Kaufman.
  • Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. T. E. Moore (Yay. haz.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language içinde (ss. 27-64). Academic Press.
  • Croft, W. Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. CUP.
  • Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell Pub.
  • Cuyckens, H. (1993). The Dutch Spatial Preposition in: A Cognitive-Semantic Analysis. C. Z. Wibbelt (Yay. haz.) The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language içinde (ss. 27–71). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up Physical and Mental Space into Conceptual Categories by Mean so English Prepositions. C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Yay haz.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language içinde (ss. 73–97). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Drozdowicz, A. (1998). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the english preposition in. Araştırma Tezi (M.Phil), Glasgow Üniversitesi.
  • Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Evans, V. (2010). From the Spatial to the Non-Spatial: The ‘State’ Lexical Concepts of in, on and at. V. Evans ve P. Chilton (Yay. haz.), Language, cognition & space içinde (ss. 215–248). Equinox.
  • Evans, V. ve Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Evans, V. ve Tyler, V. (2004). Spatial Experience, Lexical Structure and Motivation: The Case of in. G. Radden ve K. Panther (Yay. haz.) Studies in linguistic motivation içinde (ss. 157-192). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Geeraerts, D. (1992). The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 205–30.
  • Gibbs, R. W. ve. Colston, H.L. (1995). The cognitive psychological realityof image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 347–78.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2017). Embodiment. B. Dancygier (Yay. haz.) Cambridge handbook of cognitive grammar içinde (ss. 449–462). Cambridge University Press.
  • Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: an essential grammar. Routledge.
  • Gruber, J. S. (1976). Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. North-Holland Publishing Company.
  • Gündoğdu, A. E. (2020). Biçim sıfatlarında etkin alan kurulumları: yuvarlak sıfatı örneği. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 185-205.
  • Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Doktora Tezi. Kaliforniya Üniversitesi.
  • Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of the preposition in English. Cambridge University Press.
  • Huerta, B. L. (2009). The semantics of the Spanish prepositions en, a, and de: a cognitive approach. Doktora Tezi. Buffalo Üniversitesi.
  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
  • Jan, H. (2018). A Cognitive linguistics approach to explaining the polysemy of alā and fī in modern standard Arabic. Doktora Tezi. Georgetown Üniversitesi.
  • Jiang, C. ve Yang, K. (2021). Concepts and Conceptualization. X. Wen ve J. R. Taylor (Yay. haz.) The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 255-267). Routledge Press.
  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, M. (1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3-18.
  • Johnson, M. ve Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (3), 245-263.
  • Kang, Y. (2012). Cognitive linguistics approach to semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Doktora Tezi. Georgetown Üniversitesi.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis. Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.
  • Langacker R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
  • Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R.W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay. haz.) Cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 421-462). Oxford University Press.
  • Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H., ve Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Saeed, J. (2003). Semantics. Blackwell Publishing.
  • Smith, M. B. (1993). Cases as Conceptual Categories: Evidence from German. A. Geiger ve B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Yay. haz.) Conceptualization and mental processing in language içinde (ss. 531–565). Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. Chicago Linguistic Society 21 (2), 293–337.
  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. MIT Press.
  • Tavşancıl, E. ve Aslan, A. E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. Epsilon Yayınevi.
  • TDK. (2011). Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe sözlük. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Türker, E. (2005). Locative expressions in Korean and Turkish: a cognitive grammar approach. Doktora Tezi. Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Üniversitesi.
  • Ungerer, F. ve Schmid, H.(1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Longman.
  • Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial preposition: a case study from French. University of Chicago Press.
  • Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157–84.
  • Wen, X. ve Taylor, J.R. (2021). Cognitive Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect. X. Wen ve J. R. Taylor (Yay. haz.) The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics içinde (ss. 1-16). Routledge Press.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Why do we say in April, on Thursday, at 10 o’clock? In search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17(2), 437–454.
  • Winters, M.E. ve Nathan, G.S. (2020). Cognitive linguistics for linguists. Springer.
There are 56 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Linguistics, Language Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Ayşe Eda Gündoğdu 0000-0002-9074-7903

Publication Date June 30, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 35 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Gündoğdu, A. E. (2024). Türkçede içinde İlgecinin Çokanlamlılık Görünümleri: Bilişsel Dilbilim Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1308479

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad