Sözlükbilimsel İnceleme Yöntemi: Eser-İ Şevket Örneği

Abstract

Sözlük incelemesine ve eleştirisine yönelik yapılan lisansüstü yayın ve araştırmaların büyük çoğunluğunun dilbilimsel bakış açısıyla yapıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Yapılan sözlük incelemelerinde sözlükler çoklukla dil malzemesi olarak görülmüş ve sözlük; yazıldığı dönemin söz varlığı, dönemin ses bilgisel ve biçimbilimsel özellikleri vb. açılardan ele alınmıştır. Bununla birlikte ele aldığı sözlüğün biçim özelliklerini ve yazım amacını örneklerle veren çalışmalar da mevcuttur (Ör. Öbek 2009, Kalsın ve Kaplan 2009) 'Sözlükbilimsel inceleme' başlığında yapılan çalışmalarda ise sözlüğün yapısına ve işlevine dair kapsamlı bir kuramsal incelemeye rastlanılmamıştır. Sözlük incelemeleri ve eleştirilerinin temel amacının sözlüğü bilimsel temellerle iyileştirmek, kullanıcının ihtiyaçlarına daha iyi yanıt vermesini sağlamak olduğundan kuramsal ve nesnel inceleme ve eleştiri yöntemlerinin oluşturulması önem kazanmaktadır. "Sözlükbilimsel İşlevlerin Çağdaş Kuramı (The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions)" (Bergenholtz, 1996, 1998; Tarp, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002; Bergenholtz/Kaufmann, 1997; Bergenholtz/Nielsen, 2002; Bergenholtz/Tarp 2002), kullanıcı-sözlük ilişkisini sözlükbilimsel çalışmaların merkezine koymakta ve sözlükte yer alan yapıların ve bu yapıların işlevlerinin kullanıcı ihtiyaçları çerçevesinde düzenlenmesini esas almaktadır. Sözlükbilimini ve dilbilimini birbirinden ayırıp bu iki disiplinin konu alanının farklı olduğu varsayımını ön planda tutmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Sözlükbilimsel İşlevlerin Çağdaş Kuramı'na göre sözlükteki temel yapıların kullanıcısözlük ilişkisine göre nasıl düzenleneceğiyle ilgili yapılan çalışmalardan hareketle 1851'de yazılmış olan Mehmed Şevket es-Seyyid'e ait Eser-i Şevket adlı sözlük incelenmiştir

It has been determined that the vast majority of studies conducted in the studies and researches directed to the review and criticism of the glossary were made with a linguistic point of view. In dictionary reviews, dictionaries are often seen as language material and dictionary; the vocabulary of the period in which it was written, the phonological and morphological characteristics of the period, and so on. were taken from the fronts. There is no comprehensive theoretical study on the structure and function of the dictionary in the studies conducted under the heading of 'Lexicographical analysis. It is important to establish theoretical and objective examination and criticism methods since the main purpose of dictionary reviews and criticisms is to improve the dictionary on a scientific basis and to enable the user to better respond to their needs. The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions (Bergenholtz, 1996, 1998; Tarp, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002; Bergenholtz/Kaufmann, Bergenholtz/Tarp 2002) sets the user-dictionary relation at the center of lexicographical studies and based on the arrangement of the structures in the dictionary and the functions of these structures in the framework of user needs. In this study, according to the ‘The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions’, a dictionary called Mehmet Şevket es-Sayyid's Eser-i Şevket, written in 1851, was examined in relation to how to organize the basic structures of the dictionary according to the userdictionary relation It has been determined that the vast majority of studies conducted in the studies and researches directed to the review and criticism of the glossary were made with a linguistic point of view. In dictionary reviews, dictionaries are often seen as language material and dictionary; the vocabulary of the period in which it was written, the phonological and morphological characteristics of the period, and so on. were taken from the fronts. There is no comprehensive theoretical study on the structure and function of the dictionary in the studies conducted under the heading of ‘Lexicographical analysis. It is important to establish theoretical and objective examination and criticism methods since the main purpose of dictionary reviews and criticisms is to improve the dictionary on a scientific basis and to enable the user to better respond to their needs. The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions (Bergenholtz, 1996, 1998; Tarp, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002; Bergenholtz/Kaufmann, 1997; Bergenholtz/Nielsen, 2002; Bergenholtz/Tarp 2002) sets the user-dictionary relation at the center of lexicographical studies and based on the arrangement of the structures in the dictionary and the functions of these structures in the framework of user needs. In this study, according to the ‘The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions’, a dictionary called Mehmet Şevket es-Seyyid's Eser-i Şevket, written in 1851, was examined in relation to how to organize the basic structures of the dictionary according to the userdictionary relation. In this study, Eser-i Şevket, written by Mehmed Şevket es-Seyyid, was examined from the point of “The Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions”. In this review; By moving from its front matter, preface and organization of macro and microstructure, it has been determined that Eser-i Şevket (EŞ) is a pun dictionary, In addition, according to Atkins and Rundell’s point of view (2008: 24-25) EŞ is a monolingual dictionary, it was written in Ottoman Turkish, size of this dictionary is standard and also is a printed dictionary. The target population is poets who write in Ottoman Turkish. The dictionary, performs the function of using the word in the right context. The author of EŞ stated in the preface that in this dictionary, the words which hattî cinâs (type of pun which based on the use of dotted letters, subtype of lafzî cinâs) and lafzî cinâs (type of pun which based on the use of letters) are listed. Although there are different examples with different dotted letters in this dictionary related to hattî cinâs, these headwords were not included as much as other puns in dictionary. In the dictionary, the most common type of pun is the muharref cinas (type of pun which based on Arabic letters’ vowel points). The macrostructure arrangement of the EŞ is quite convenient to find examples of this type. EŞ is the first and unique example of its type in Turkish lexicography. Although many works have been written in Arabic literature on the art of pun, these works are mostly reference sources related to eloquence. Macrostructure of EŞ adopts the alphabetical principle arranged according to Arabic alphabet, this alphabetical arrangement has been customized for the purposes of the dictionary by the dictionary writer. In the work, the headwords are located at the end of the previous entry, not on the right side of the page and not down from the top (according to the Arabic alphabet), and the only sign that separates the headword from the item is the heading in parentheses. That is, if the dictionary is prepared in plain text format, it is difficult to find a headword and to use the dictionary. EŞ was benefited from several important books written before it. The dictionary writer mentioned this in the preface but because it is the first example to be written, the dictionary writer of EŞ has benefited from important general purpose dictionaries of the period in which it was written, not the same kind of dictionaries that were written before itself. There are many hidden quotations and allusions in EŞ. In this study, no statistical data about the hidden quotations and allusions were collected but it was found that the dictionary writer benefited from some other dictionaries while the work was transcribed. The hidden quotations and allusions in the dictionary are of a kind and contextual change according to the user and the dictionary. In EŞ, many headwords are word-forms. The reason why the headwords are arranged in this way is that the purpose of this dictionary. In this dictionary the dictionary writer intended to list the homograph words and making pun easier. This property ensures the authenticity of EŞ. There is no user's guide on how to use the dictionary in the front matter in EŞ. In addition, there is no information about which information categories are included in each microstructure, but a certain standard is provided in the regulation of microstructures. In the dictionary, different microstructure editing methods are available according to different parts of speech. In the Ottoman Turkish, written in Arabic letters, pronunciation and orthography of the headwords are complex and most of the words are available for multiple reading. In this respect, it can be seen that the EŞ can be used also to detect different pronunciations of homograph (even though the main purpose of the dictionary writer is to list pun words). The definitions given in EŞ do not have a specific standard and appear to be very complex. Also, many of the definitions are taken from other dictionaries of its period. However, as mentioned above, the main purpose of the dictionary is not to describe words but to list pun words. Therefore, retrieving definitions from different dictionaries is not a qualification that reduces the value of the dictionary. According to Svensén (2009), the types of definitions used in EŞ are: intensional definition, synonym definition, definition and synonym in combination, description of the function of the lemma and antonymy. Etymological information was given in 15.354 of 17.472 articles in the EŞ. 2645 does not have any etymological information. Since grammatical information about Arabic grammar rules is given in 1327 of the headwords which are not provided with etymological information, these items can be considered as Arabic words. Therefore, the vast majority of the headwords in the dictionary are Arabic. When 15.354 etymological of the headwords is examined, 11.653 are Arabic, 2251 are Persian, 1388 are Turkish and 62 are from other languages. In all the dictionaries written before the Tanzimat Period, Arabic and Persian words were made as headwords and their definitions were given in Turkish words. The etymology of the 1388 headwords in EŞ is Turkish. Besides, quite plain Turkish was used in the definitions. When these two points are taken into account, as the first dictionary of Türkçe, EŞ can be accepted after Lehçetü'l-Lugat (1732), which was accepted as the first Turkish dictionary of the period. However, these two dictionaries are quite different from each other in terms of type and purpose. There are two types of cross-referencing in this dictionary: entryinternal cross-reference and dictionary-external cross-references. No abbreviations, symbols or symbols are used in cross-references. However, similar words or sentences are used as standard. No abbreviations or symbols are used in cross-references. However, similar words or sentences are used as standard. There is only the front and back matter in the outside matter of the EŞ. Middle matter is not observed in the dictionary.