You are here

Home » Content

Sözdizim ile Anlambilim Arasındaki Bağıntıya Türkçe Açısından Bir Bakış

On the Relationhips between Syntax and Semantics with regard to the Turkish Language

Journal Name:

  • Kaygı: Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
A belief commonly held in linguistics and philosophy is that semantics is defined by syntax. In this article, I will demonstrate that this does not hold true for Turkish. A fundamental syntactical rule builds around the successive order of words or speech units in a sentence. The order determines the meaning of the sentence, which in turn is rendered meaningless if the rule is not observed. In a given language, if a sentence retains meaning without this rule being applied, then the rule cannot be said to determine meaning. Turkish, with its mathematical structure, is one such language. In effect, the degree to which semantics is determined by syntax varies considerably from one language to the other. If meaning is constructed through dissimilar means in different languages, then it is not possible to talk about a single theory of meaningfulness valid for all languages. Each language is uniquely determined, and is a reflection of its proper cultural background. A theory of language must take into account this cultural framework. In this paper, I shall deal with a different way of constructing meaning whereby syntax does not determine semantics, and present the linguistic possibilities it gives rise to.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
İnsan, duygu ve düşüncelerini dile getirebildiği gibi, çeşitli davranış biçimleriyle de ifade edebilir. Bu durum, dilbilimsel (linguistik) ve kültürel semiotiğin birlikte incelenmesi gerektiğini ortaya koyar. Dilin dilbilimsel yapısı ile kültürü arasında karşılıklı bir belirleme ilişkisi vardır. Bu nedenle bize yabancı bir dili konuşan bir insanın jestlerini, mimiklerini de anlamayız. Semiotiğin iki ana bölümü olan sözdizim (sentaks) ile anlambilim (semantik) arasında da bağıntı vardır. Ancak bu bağıntı, her dilde aynı değildir. Bu da bütün diller için geçerli bir anlam kuramının olamayacağını gösterir. Ben bu makalede, Türkçedeki bu bağıntı durumunu göz önüne alarak dil felsefesi açısından, özellikle anlamın belirlenmesi konusunda bazı yeni öneriler sunuyorum.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_277_20_pp_139-152.pdf
  • 1
139-152
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Aristotle. De Interpretatione. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Ed. Johnathan
Barnes.Vol. 1. Bollingen Series LXXI 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Baker, Gordon Park. “Wittgenstein’s ‘depth grammar’.” Language & Communication 21
(2001): 303−319.
Brandom, Robert Boyce.Tales of the Mighty Dead.Harvard University Press, 2002.
Cappelen, Herman, and Ernest Lepore. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic
Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005.
Chalmers, David J. “Two-Dimensional Semantics.” The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy
of Language. Eds Ernest Lepore and Barry C. Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. 574−606.
Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. Hague: Mouton & Co. ‘S-Gravenhage, 1957.
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1976.
Coulter, Jeff. “Discourse and Mind.”Human Studies 22 (1999): 163−181.
Freeman, Kathleen. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1952.
Frege,Gottlob. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.
Heidegger, Martin. On The Way To Language. New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1971.
Heidegger, Martin. “What is Metaphysics?” Martin Heidegger Basic Writings. Ed. David
Farrell Krell. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978. 91−112.
Heidegger, Martin. Was istMetaphysik? Frankfurt a.M: Vittorio Klostermann, 1981.
Jakobson, Roman. Style in Language. Ed. Thomas Albert Sebeok. New York: Wiley,
1960.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Lohmann, Johannes. Philosophie und Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot,
1965.
Morris, Charles William. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Toronto: The University of
Toronto Press, 1964.
Plato. Sophist. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard
University Press, 1961.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Net.art: Dysfunctionality and Self-Reflexivity.” Between Page and
Screen. Ed. Kiene Brillenburg Wurth. Oxford University Press Publication, Forthcoming. Sextus
Empiricus. Against the Logicians. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Soykan, ÖmerNaci. “Arts and Languages: A Comparative Study.”Art Criticism 24. 1
(2009): 113−121.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Grammar. Ed. Rush Rhees. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Publishers Ltd, 1990.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd,
1997.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com