OUTLINE

1.) INTRODUCTION
2.) LITERATURE REVIEW
.....2.1) SEMIOTICS IN A GENERAL FRAMEWORK
............2.1.1) Basic Terms In Semiology
...................Sign
...................Signal
...................Symptom
...................Index
...................Icon
...................Language as a Sign
............2.1.2) The Views of the Authorities About Semiotics
...................Ferdinand de Saussure
...................Charles Sanders Peirce
.....2.2 APPLIED LINGUISTICS
.....2.3 APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND SEMIOTICS
.....2.4 THE INTERSECTION POINT OF SEMIOTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS : ALPHABET
............2.4.1) The History of Alphabet in a General Framework
............2.4.2) Some Writing Systems
...................Pictographic writing system
...................Ideographic writing system
...................Logographic writing system
...................Hierogliphic writing system
...................Runic writing system
............2.4.3) Alphabet in Turks - Göktürk Alphabet
............2.4.4) Methods Widely Used in Deciphering Turkic Inscriptions
...................Vilhelm Thomson
...................J. Nemeth
3.) AN APLICATION:SEMIOTIC ELEMENTS IN GÖKTÜRK ALPHABET
.....3.1)METHOD
.....3.2)SELECTION OF THE INFORMANTS
.....3.3)DATA COLLECTION
4.) FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
5.) CONCLUSION
6.) APPENDICES
7.) REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.) INTRODUCTION

This study is applied to indicate the relationship between semiotics and applied Linguistics. Semiotics as a science, deals with 'signs' and 'symbols' which support the communication of human. Signs and symbols are not far from communication systems; they are also involved in non-verbal communication. Semiotics was the main concern of Charles Pierce - logician- and Ferdinand de Saussure - linguist- in the recent eras.

Applied linguistics has several concern areas including semiotics, which is the main affair of this study. The primary field combinig semiotics and applied linguistics is the writing systems of natural languages. Some writing systems used in the course of history like 'pictographic, ideographic, logographic, hierogliphic, runic ' , are mentioned. Besides those, the methods used by Vilhelm Thomsen and J. Nemeth in deciphering Turkic writing systems are given.

'Göktürk Alphabet' which is not used today will be the application part of this study. Semiotic elements which shaped the Göktürk Alphabet are emphasized. In that part a survey about the semiotical elements in the first Turkısh national alphabet is given to participants. Those semiotical elements in the data are some 'letters' indeed . However Göktürk Nation used those letters as independent words which were the reflection of the places they sheltered (tents, houses,etc.), the equipments they used (arrow, spear, etc.) and the animals they made exploit of . Therefore , at the end of the study, the performance of the informants about predicting the words and their resemblances between the symbols and the reflections are commented on .

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Before the practical study , it would be suitable to clarify the concepts of semiotics and applied linguistics under the heading of the main terms.

In this part one would be able to find the broder explanations of the terms and the views of the authorities of applied linguistics and semiotics.

Alphabet as a semiological system is also placed in the literature review.

2.1 SEMIOTICS IN A GENERAL FRAMEWORK

Various meaningful complements in the society and the sign systems which provide communication among people are studied, explained, and classified by the "science of signs" : semiotics. Semiotics foregrounds and problematizes the problem of representation ( Chandler , "Strenghts of Semiotic Analysis" ). Natural languages (Turkish , English, Spanish, Arabic, Italian....) , body language, deaf-mute language, traffic signs, traffic lights, flags, advertisement posters , drama, literature , music, pictures, courteous manners, religious ceremonies , traditions, fashion , supersititions , writing systems, punctuation marks , alphabets and several other phenomena , which point out another thing apart from their real representations , are in the field of semiotics .

Semiotics emphasizes on the interchange of messages in the name of communication. Robert Hodge and Gunter Kress, cited by Chandler, say that -unlike many academic diciplines-: "semiotics offers the promise of a systematic, comprehensive and coherent study of communications phenomena as a whole, not just the instances of it" (Chandler , "Strenghts of Semiotic Analysis" ). The messages and phenomena which provide a complete communication are originated from several meaningful units . Chandler also comments on the reality and meaning dimension of semiotics as : "….. semiotics emphasizes the role of sign systems in the construction of reality ; semiotics can help make us aware of what we take for granted in representing the world reminding us that we are always dealing with signs, not with an unmediated objective reality, and that sign systems are involved in the construction of meaning" and he combines semiotics and interpretation by the means of signs and meaning ; meaning becomes the active process of interpretation by the help of semiotics ( Chandler, "Strenghts of Semiotic Analysis" ) . In this sense a sign is a phenomenon replacing and standing for another thing in the real world.

The units of semiotics have to aim complete communication. Ayşe Kıran in her essay, comments on the aim, function, and origin of semiotics:

Although it has been regarded as a newly developed branch , semiotics has its own evaluation process. The subject matter of semiotics -ultimately, a made of extending our perception of the world- is the exchange of any messages whatever and of the systems of signs that underlie them; hence alongside such fields as social antropology (which deals with the exchange of mates), and economics (which deals with the exchange of utilities, goods and services ), semiotics is most commonly regarded as a branch of the communication disciplines (Sebeok, 6 cited in L-Strauss 1958:326). Sebeok also stressess the domains of semiotics as ; the first domain of semiotics - as a discipline - is anthroposemiotics which studies species-specific signal systems, the second domain is zoosemiotics dealing with animal communication , the third domain is endosemiotics which deals with the cybernetic systems in the body ( Sebeok , 6 ) . Moreover semiotics is a natural science. Semiotics can also help us to realise that whatever assertions seem to us to be "obvious" , "natural" , "universal", "given", "permanent" and incontrovertable are generated by the ways in which sign systems operate in our discourse communities ( Chandler , "Strenghts of Semiotic Analysis" ).

The theories about semiotics have prolonged to the early ages but it has reached its golden age in the 20th century. Particularly after 1960's semiotics gained impetus.

2.1.1 Basic Terms in Semiology

'Sign'

Sign is a term used for all kinds of phenomena which take place of another thing. A sign points to another reality apart from its real representation. The main feature of a sign is "perceptability" which means signs are different from what they convey is perceived primarily . Signs equate meaning with content , signs do not "convey" meanings but constitute a medium in which meanings are constructed ( Chandler , "Strenghts of semiotic Analysis" ). In this sense, signs are masks so , we can focus on the functionality of signs.

'Signal'

In a simple explanation : a signal is a sign which is produced by an animate or an inanimate in order to carry a message; then this message is loaded to a physical conveyor and is perceived by the others (Mutlu, 27) . Signal causes an alternation in the behaviour of the receiver (Sebeok,16) . Signals -- these kind of signs aim at conveying meaning and communicating-- have social features (Vardar,75) .

'Symptom'

Symptoms have got natural qualities.They are not arbitrary which occur sponteneously ( Mutlu, 27 ) . These are based on natural connections and the cause-effect relations among phenomena ( Vardar, 74) . For instance smoke points to fire. These kinds of signs are not human made; they are truly connected with nature.

'Index'

The impressions. For instance a parfume continuously used by a woman might be the "clue", "track", "trail", "cue-index" of her personality ( Mutlu, 27) .

'Icon'

Photographs , drawings, advertisements, pictures, posters are in this type. Icons are deliberately used in order to arouse interest . According to Mine Mutlu icons are visual signs , and, they are aroused interest by using similarities( Mutlu , 27) .

'Language' as a sign

Language is a perfect system of signs. The string of sounds in language indicates the concepts or realities rather than their vocal representations. Human beings use this well -developed sign for ages, to perform their communication system. Indeed using language as a sign is the most short-cut way of expressing the thoughts. The origin of language in the framework of linguistics, antropology,....etc has been discussed for a long time. Atilla Özkırımlı stresses some theories about the language as a sign in the following:

It can be commented on the view that ; the first step was the humanization of natural sounds; then the second step was the production of phonemes -deliberately or not- ; third step was the inscription of phonemes in order to produce a writing system .

Why linguists regard language as a system of signs? Human beings use their vocal organs -from diagram to tongue and teeth- in order to transform the sounds into phonemes. Using those string of sounds in terms of rules and orders , forms language. For this reason, linguists regard language as a system of signs.

Language sign -as Saussure clarified- is a complement which is formed by an acoustic image -in the mind as linguisitc sounds traced- and a concept ; in other words a complement of contents and vocal expressions -signifier and signified - (Vardar,76) .

Language is transformed into a concrete object by the means of writing. Writing is the inscription of language. Writing is a secondary image which presents language being a mean of communication of speech, as a visiual and one-dimensional system; writing is used in order to prevent the loss of language ( Vardar ,84) .

2.1.2 The Views of the Authoroties about Semiotics

The origin of semiology can be traced back to Antiquity. The meaning of science were aroused interest from the early ages; Stoics in the early ages and Scolastic Scholars in Middle Ages tried to distinguish some signs belonging to natural languages ( Ana Britannica , 612 ) .

In the 17th century the term "semiotics" was firstly used by John Locke. In America Charles Sanders Peirce and in Europe Ferdinand de Saussure pioneered semiolgy in order to make it an independent science. Apart from Saussure and Peirce, Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, Thomas Sebeok are the important names in semiology.

Ferdinand de Saussure

Saussure, as a linguist, dealt with both linguistics and semiotics. Saussure took natural languages as the starting point and then he studied the functions of other signs. He was the first person who included language to a privilaged place among sign systems (Vardar,11) . Saussure points to the places of signs in society.

According to Saussure language as a sign combines a concept and a vocal image. Saussure depends that the combination between signifier and signified is causless. For him, signifier is the vocal entity; signified is the concept which loads the vocal entity.

Charles Sanders Peirce

Peirce was a logician. Therfore he explained semiotics in the framework of logic. As to him logic is sign; in broad terms logic is semiology (Ana Britannica,489). Peirce studied semiological function.

According to Peirce semiotics took its sources from confirmity belonging to all our knowledge( Vardar,87) .

For Peirce, the universe is perfused with signs,if it is not composed exclusively of signs ( Chandler , " Strenghts of Semiotic Analysis" ) .

The main difference between the doctrines of Saussure and Peirce is; Saussure has a linguistic point of view on semiotics , whereas Peirce orientates his thoughts by the means of logic.

Some remarkable views after Saussure and Peirce:
- Russian formalists studied semiotics while they were analysing narration structures.
- Prague Linguistic school dealt with semiotics and its functions in the framework of literature and art phenomena.
- Louis Hjelmslev -the founder of the Cophenagen School- developed Saussure's theory. He studied other signs apart from language in a logical point of view.
- After 1960's , semiotics gained importance. Especially in Europe,USA and Russia various semiotic schools and groups were founded .

2.2 APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Applied linguisitcs is a partial branch of linguistics. Applied linguisitcs ,conceived as an independent area of human knowledge, is a recent field of discussion and research ( Mattos , " Linguistics and Applied Linguistics" ) . The primary concern of this field is the applicaition of linguisitc theories, methods and findings to the language problems of other areas . The practical linguisitic problems of other sciences make use of the knowledge of language by the means of applied linguisitcs. The approaches of applied linguisitcs are fruitful for the other humanistic areas.

Andrea Machado emphasizes the difference between linguistics and applied linguisitcs as ;

The most well-developed branch of applied linguisitcs is the teaching and learning of foreign languages and sometimes the terms is used as if this were the only field involved (Crystal, 24) . Due to term application applied linguisitcs is perceived equal to language teaching only . However there are several branches of applied linguisitcs as ; sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, translation, lexicography, speech pathology, semiotics, stylistics, clinical linguistics, computational linguistics, semiology, analysing of writing systems ,etc… So it is suitable to put on mark that applied linguisitcs is an interdisciplinary area because it derives its sources and knowledge from several disciplines, and it enlightens the questions of these disciplines.

Applied linguisitcs is not a branch of science but as well as science , it must be systematic, objective, observational, expilicit, comprehensive, precise and methodological. In order to deal with problems or linguistic concerns of other branches, applied linguisitcs must develop a method and consume the findings of science.

Linguistics was the first positive sociological science which draw the precise framework of its study by establishing its theme on language (Kıran, 51) . Therefore it won't be unsuitable to depend that , linguistics embraces the other brances which concern society and human, by the means of applied linguisitcs.

2.3 APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND SEMIOTICS

Semiotics is both an old and a contemporary branch such as linguistics. It has been discussed for ages; whether semiotics is in the field of linguistics or linguistics is in the field of semiotics. The general tendency is on the second view because the linguists have a common idea that language is a sign system. Whether it is a verbal language or non-verbal language ,thoughts,ideas,concrete or abstract phenomena are indicated by language - as a sign- .

Mine Mutlu in her essay touches upon some linguists thoughts about semiotics and linguistics:

In fact, semiotics is an anaysis with various methods. In essence it analyses the underlying meaning by which it is signed and shaped. At this point applied linguisitcs and semiotics reach a common aim in the level of analysis; when studying a text , linguistic analysis should be carried on before semiotical analysis because there exist so specific and unique signs that they can only be studied firstly by the means of linguistics.

2.4 THE INTERSECTION POINT OF SEMIOTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS : ALPHABET

The aim which is tried to apply on this study starts with this title .The intersection point of this study , combining semiotics and applied linguisitcs , is alphabet , and its origin in general . Also the real aim is to arouse interest to a special alphabet belonging to Göktürk Nation .

2.4.1 The History of Alphabet in a General Framework

Alphabet is a system of written characters, signs or symbols used to indicate speech sounds of a language. However not all the graphemes in a written piece do show only one phoneme. Sometimes one grapheme may indicate two phonemes.
For instance :

e.g. jellyfish /jeı'efıS/
.......gelatin /jel' tin/

.......So › / j / and /g / graphemes are shown by one phoneme /j / .

Alphabet is wholly a semiotical element because the signs in fact and at first sight are meaningless shapes. However these signs convey specific sounds beyond being meaningless shapes.

The origin of the alphabet is newer than the origin of the writing. The invention of writing and the invention of the alphabet did not coincide because the need of writing was primitive and more significant. People in early ages stated their thoughts by recording them and the necessity of writing appeared.

Before the invention of the alphabet Sumerians and Egyptians developed a writing system. Except the materials used in the wriring process; these two alphabets have several similarities.

Robin Allot cited the idea of Dringer ; " the great achievement in the creation of the alphabet was not the invention of signs but the inner working principle…each sound represented by one symbol and each symbol generaly represents one sound" ( Allot , "Articulatory Alphabet" ) .

Alphabet is the reduction of a writing system. It is a miniature of a whole writing system , which gives an idea about the writing system itself. Invention of the alphabet was not really an invention in the sense of something completely new but a modification of what really existed (Allot, "Articulatory Alphabet") because the writing system reduced to a synopsis which is called alphabet.

Articulatory Basis of the Alphabet

Figure - ( Allot , "Articulatory Alphabet" )

Robin Allot supports his illustration about the alphabet ; according to him the "articulatory alphabet" might have been originated from this question: "why should I not represent speech by a picture or someones face as he produces a particular sound?" The next stage of the process might have been: " why should I not limit the picture to the parts of the face which are used in speaking?" and then the last step might have been : " why not pay attention to my own way of speeaking, and try to represent that?" (Allot , "Articulatory Alphabet" ) .

In this process we can comment on the articulation process (i.e.), the articulation process began to turn into a semiological process. As Allot suggests the alphabet origanally was not the result of a slow process of modification of an earlier pictographic or cuneiform script but was a genuinely new invention picturing the process of articulation of speech sounds (Allot , "Articulatory Alphabet" ) .

Figure - ( Allot , "Articulatory Alphabet" )

The comment of Sir William Jones on the origin of the alphabet was also stated by Robin Allot : 'one approach which has been suggested quite often in the past most notably by Sir William Jones the great Sanskrit scholar, is that the letters of the alphabet originally might have represented a picturing of the positions or movements of the mouth and other articulatory organs in producing the distinct sounds represented by the alphabet ' (Allot , Articulatory Alphabet ) .

In brief, it should be emphasized that , the origin of the alphabet has been based on an articulatory approach. The human biological process of producing sounds by the help of lips, were reflected into the origins of the alphabet -the primitive shapes- . This view has been considering for years by the experts and it seems that the hypothesis is powerful.

2.4.2 Some Writing Systems used for ages

1- Pictographic writing system

Picture writing by the use of pictographs. In pictographic script a picture or a symbol represents a concept.

2 - Ideographic writing system

Ideogram is a graphic symbol which represents an object or an idea without expressing , as in a phonetic system , the sounds that form its name.

3 - Logographic writing system

A letter or a character or a symbol used to represent an entire word. Chinese is the best example of this system.

4 - Cuneiform writing system

Wedge-shaped writing system. This system designate the characters such as wedge.

5 - Hierogliphic writing system

Instead of alphabetical letters , a picture or symbol represeting a word, sylabble or sound , were used. Ancient Egyptians used this system .

6 - Runic writing system

Runes are the old German and Scandinavian graphemes (figures) . The runic system is a writing system which uses rune-like symbols. The sources of runic system have not been solved. In Runic alphabet there existed angled shaped figures and runic writing systems which were written from right to left.

As it is understood, during the course of the history all the writing systems were developed in the reflection of naturalistic elements. Whether their sources were vague or certain, it is easily seen that those people were imitated something in the nature. That means : All the writing systems have semiotic elements so they are in the domain of semiotics .

2.4.3 Alphabet in Turks - GÖKTÜRK ALPHABET

During the ages Turks had close relations with several cultures and religions such as Shamanism, Budhism, Christianity, Manichacism, Judaism and Islam; of course it is possible to see the effects of these trends in their life styles. They used considerably different alphabets as a result of this interaction . Turks used Soud , Chinese , Tibetian, Syriac, Brehmen, Arabic, Pechenek, Kuman, Hebrew, Greek, Slavic and Latin.

Göktürk Alphabet was the first-known Turkish alphabet in the history of Turkish nations. Göktürk and Uygur languages forms the "Old Turkish Period' in the history of Turkish language. Orhon and Yenisey Monuments, which have reached today and deciphered (25 November 1893) in the 19th. century by Wilhelm Thomson who didn't know Turkish , proved that Old Turkish Nations -Göktürk- had an inscribed written language and an original alphabet.

The famous Turchologist Talat Tekin says that the first alphabet used by Turks in order to inscribe their writings is known as "Runic alphabet" in the west , but "Göktürk Alphabet" in the Turkish world (Tekin ,17 ). The western world names this writing system as Runic because it resembles to the Futhark Alphabet used by the North European Germanic people (Danish,Swedish,Norwegian) in 17th B.C.

In order to sum up the features of Göktürk writing system it would be efficient to make use of Talat Tekin's study. In Göktürk alphabet there are 38 graphemes. Four vowel symbols of Göktürk alphabet indicate the eight vowels of today's Turkish alphabet . (a,e); (ı,i); (o,u); (ö,ü). It is difficult to distinguish the pairs; so,looking into the whole word , such as today's Arabic, makes the guesses right . In order to read the words exactly and truly it is essential knowing the word.

10 of the consonants in Göktürk Alphabet are double-signs; they have two signs for each. For instance (b) used with i,e,ü,ö and used with a,ı,o,u,(eg: beş, baş ). These letters are (b,d,g,k,l,n,r,s,t,y). Whereas ç,m,n,ny,p,ş and z are neuter. On the other hand in Göktürk alphabet three signs are double consonants (t,nç,nt) and ; ok/uk,ök/ük,iç/ık are the signs of syllables (Tekin,17,18) .

In Göktürk Alphabet the letters were written from right to left without combination . " : " symbol was used between the words in order to separate them .

It is a general assumption that the writing system used by Göktürks had a quality of pictographic system because there exist various signs which also indicate 'independent words' besides being independent graphemes . For this reason it is suitable to stress that ; Göktürk alphabet had several semiotic elements which have been assumed as the reflections of the constituents of their life styles and the reflections of nature.

Some views point out that ; some symbols in Turkic alphabets had their sources from seals , and they reflect the life style of Turkish nations. For instance the word means arrow (ok) besides being a consonant .

2.4.4 Widely Used Methods in Deciphering Turkic Inscriptions

Vilhelm Thomson

Vilhelm Thomson was the first person who deciphered the alphabet on Göktürk Monuments without knowing even only a Turkish word. Firstly he decided the order of the lines and columns. Then he found the direction of the writing , whether it was written from left to right or right to left , and he established which graphemes indicated which sounds. There was no one to one correspondence between the shapes and the words because some symbols some other phenomena rather than graphemes. Such as ":" which was used to indicate the separation between two words. Also there were four syllable symbols to indicate the syllables ok/uk,ök/ük,ık and iç. As it is seen ; having a linguistic background is essential when attempting to study such old scripts.

J . Németh

Besides Vilhelm Thomson, the method of J. Németh has some similarities in the linguistic level. J. Németh, turchologist, deciphered a treasure from Nagy-Szent-Miklos near to the Danube. In 1799 in old Hungary a treasure , which belonged to the Kypchak Nation , was found by chance. Kypchak language forms the northwestern part of Middle Turkish.

When studying the language on the treasure (goblets, jars, vessels), Németh applied a comperative method. He paid attention to the Greek characters in the inscriptions because some forms which were the characteristics of Europe and Turkic languages were on the vessels. The effect and some characteristic features of Christianity and eastern world were seen on the writings . -Iran - enlightened him that the inscriptions on the treasure was not homogeneous. By using those kind of knowledge Németh decided that the scripts had belonged to a dialect of Kypchak language : Petcheneg language.

Because he knew the phonetic value of the signs , he was able to interpret the inscriptions on the vessels. He knew the characteristics of runeiform script so he could easily decided that the writing system on the vessels or goblets were runic. Németh emphasizes that that the runiform character of the scripts could be recognised at first sight : such letters were cut with knife upon rune-stics which was a technique leading to special shapes of letters (Németh, 5) .

Németh stresses the words of Thomson; due to the fact that Petcheneg system was not an undeciphered writing system it couldn't be studied in the framework of "comparison of the individual signs technique' (this was used in the decipherement of the Göktürk Alphabet ) . Therefore the decipherement of the whole inscriptions had to be performed on the material of the inscriptions (Németh,5) .

The starting point of J. Németh in this study was a few questions such as 'if there are short inscriptions on objects similar to the Turkish runiform scripts; then what are their meaning and relations? '. He started with the similarity of Greek writing system and he found some identical characters. Then he seeked Chinese influence in Göktürk Monuments on the western side, there existed Chinese characters, and a Chinese writing. By following those comparing and contrasting methods , and , by combining relations among the inscriptions Németh concluded his study.

3. AN APPLICATION : SEMIOTIC ELEMENTS IN GÖKTÜRK ALPHABET

1-

Pronounced as /ok/ ( Özakıncı,55) . This symbol corresponds to /ok/ or /uk/. If preceeded by /o/ or /u/ phoneme , the (o,u) doesn't writtten ; on the other hand if followed by /o/ or /u/ phoneme , is written (Orkun,203).

"tokuz"

In Klaştorniy's essay the idoegraphic characteristics of the symbol below,is stated as : ' symbol': " Palivanov , by repeating the the idea that and symbols have ideographic (means = consist of picture and covers an idea at the same time) origin, shows an important indication;these symbols (,) represents the "moon" and "arrow" in the text and they can be used as separate words" (Klaştorniy , 28 ). This feature of the symbol is also take place in Talat Tekin's book "Thomsen couldn't help himself from claiming that has an ideographic origin. It resembles to arrow."

( Tekin,24) .

2-

This symbol which is used with vowels and which corresponds to /j/ phoneme uttered as /ay/ if it is used without any vowel -even in the middle or at the beginning of a word- it would be pronounced as /ay/ or /ya/ (Orkun, 207).

"yagız"

In an the essay written by Klaştorniy, cited from Thomsen, it is strongly possible that isn't anything but the "moon" ( Klaştorniy, 28 ) .

This symbol can also be used as a separate word like . This time it means "moon". In some of the sources it is stated that, symbol pronounced as /yay/ resembles to bow (Özakıncı,55).

3-

This symbol corresponds to /b/ phoneme. The other variations of this symbol are . If it is written as the initial sound (without any wovel) it is pronounced as /eb/ or /be/ (Orkun,207).

symbol which is pronounced as /eb/ is like a picture of a house. /eb/ means house in Göktürk language. The houses were tents ; and the constructions of the tents are similar to that symbol (Özakıncı,55 ) .

4-

This symbol represents /iç/ phoneme (Orkun,207). pronounced as /iç/ which means "to surrender". The symbol presents us the motive of a person who is surrendered. It is the picture of a person showing that he is surrendered with his behaviours

(Özakıncı, 55) :

hands up! surrender

5-

Pronounced as /e /. In Yenisey Monuments it is written as . The other variations used in Göktürk Monuments are , If it is used as initial in a word it should be pronounced with a vowel since there is nosuch a word beginning with this symbol (Orkun , 208).

One of the meanings of /e / is "he/she" (third person). This symbol is like a body that is showing the third person with his hand.

6-

This /t/ symbol uttered as /at/ when pronounced with kalın consonants. The other variations used in Yenisey Monuments are . If it is written in the middle without a vowel is is pronounced as /at/ or /ta/ (Orkun,208).

The semiological feature of this symbol is stated in Klaştorniy's essay as: "the symbol pronounced as /at/ resembles to horse( Klaştorniy, 28) .

7-

This symbol pronounced as /s/ or /ş/ and used with the letters e,i,ö,ü (Orkun,211).

Sü (=soldier,army)

Biş,Beş

In the same essay, Orkun takes the interest to the ideographic features of this symbol:

= süngük (spear)

8-

The symbol which is used with e,i,ü,ö vowels,is also written as (eastern Türkistan handwritings). There is no word beginnig with this symbol. If used initially, it is pronounced as /er/ (Orkun,209) .

(= erti)

In Belleten encyclopedia what the symbol represents described as ;

= /ar/ (person)

Hüseyin Namık Orkun put this symbol in ideographic letter class and claimed that it, resembles to a person (Orkun,214).

9-

This symbol also written as . Although /a/ is never written before the symbol , it is pronounced as /ag/ (Orkun, 204).

( = kagan ) ............................ ( = yagı)

If it is used with other vowels, the vowel must be written :

( = oguz ) (Orkun,204) .

" /ag/ = it may be 'net' for fishing" (Orkun,205) .

10-

this symbol is also written as . It gives the /s/ consonant . If it is used seperetaly it means /aşık/ (door,entrance of a tent). It is also resembles to entrance to door of a tent.

11-

The only only information we could reach about this symbol stated in Osman Nedim Tuna's essay "Eski Doğu Türk Yazıtında Ligatürler". In this essay he gives the meaning ; /art/ (valley between two mountains) (Tuna,220) .

Others;

Pronounced as /ot/ (weed). Resembels to two weeds at a mound. Used in small fortune book "Irk Bitig" (Tekin,24) .

Pronounced as /in/. This symbol is put in ideographic symbol classes but what it resembles to. doesn't mentioned (Orkun, 214) .

A Striking Example !

These ideographic features of the symbols belonging to Göktürk alphabet shown in Cengiz Özakıncı's book "Dil ve Din" as an example. He examines the word "Tengri";

Tengri

He asks the question that how a dump person tells the word /te ri/ by using her body. Then he analysed each symbol of the word "tengri":

In this word there exist a symbol meaning of "knee". According to Özakıncı the vertical line represents the body and the bulge represents The leg (especially the knee) (Özakıncı, 56) .

According to old Turks the "knee" is a word which means not only a joint but also the power. In Orhon Monuments such words about the latter meaning of knee were used "tizligig söktürtümiz" (we make the strong kneel down). Here the word "knee" means power. Today these two words, knee and power, are associatively related (Özakıncı, 56).

One of the meanings of this symbol is "excessive", like the superlative Form "the biggest, the highest". This symbol also gives the impression of a person showing "excessive" with his hands. This symbol is probably a drawing which shows such a thing (Özakıncı, 56) .

These symbols can be seen as the connection of the "excessive" and the "powerful" signs (eng - tiz).The "teng" part of the word "tengri" in Old Turkish is the way of showing "the strongest" concept in drawing Method. It likes drawing of a person, who stands over a thing under his feets and he shows that he is the strongest, by raising his arm. (Özakıncı, 57) .

If we consider the meaning of the "raised arm" symbol as the third person pronoun "he", the meaning of the two symbols becomes "he, the strongest". That is "he is the one who is the strongest" (he is the strongest). These two meanings aren't contrary to each other. Furthermore it is a meaning harmony with "Allah" in Arabic. "Tengri" isn't shown as a person. The symbols are like the body movements of a person who is trying to tell the word "tengri" without speaking (Özakıncı, 57). Old Turks meant "the strongest thing" by saying "tengri" (Özakıncı, 58) .

3.2 METHOD

The survey include 11 ideographic characters of Göktürk writing system , which carry semiological features. The aim of this study is not to prove whether the semiological elements are predicted truly or not . Therefore the informants aren't expected to guess the exact meanings of the symbols. At the end of the application a general comment will be reached ; rather than a proof. The discussion which will be pointed out at the end of the study is totally based on the comments of the informants about the time& place-dependant semiological elements of this alphabet. It should be heavily emphasized that ; the life style , the equipments , the animals , etc ...of those ages , were the most important factors which shaped the alphabet and word usage of Göktürk Nation , lived between 552-745 .

3.2.1 Selection of the Informants

The purpose of the application is to test and comment on the predictability of the meaning of those 11 characters by the means of the 20 informants.

The informants, ages between 20-55, are chosen from university students and university graduates . 10 informants are between the ages 20-35 and other 10 are between the ages 35-55 . Gender is not taken as a differentiating dimension. The informants do not have linguistic background on an academic level.

3.2.2 Data Collection

The data includes eleven of the characters mentioned above. The data is given to the informants as surveys. Before the surveys are filled , the information below are given :

The informants knew that there isn't time limitation. They aren't given any sample clues.

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

It must be strictly emphasized that the survey won't prove whether the symbols are really semiotical elements or not. Because the culture , the writing systems , the life style , tools etc… have been totally changing ; the informants aren't supposed to guess the exact equivalences of the characters.

For instance ; symbol means fish net ; that is a kind of tool which has got a handle and a top. As a right answer "axe- balta" can be acceptable , whereas, for instance "sack-çuval" is unacceptable.

For instance ; symbol means " valley - vadi" ; that is a kind of geographical element , so ; " two mountains or mountain , meadow , etc…" can be acceptable.

This symbol resembles to "arrow-ok" according to the authorities. Twelve of the twenty informants resemble it to arrow and write exactly arrow. The other answers are : spear - mızrak , slope - yokuş , thunder-yıldırım , bottom- dip, down-aşağı , approval-onay , ground-yer (2) .

Note : As an overall idea ; Göktürk's reflected the shape of this tool completely ("arrow-ok") to their writing system.

This ideogram resembles to both "bow-yay" and " moon-ay". Seven of the twenty informants write "moon-ay" ; five of those twenty informants write "bow-yay". The others give different answers : goodness-iyilik, tent-çadır, meadow-ova , truth-doğru , share-paylaşmak , sack-çuval , bread- ekmek , half circle-yarım daire .

Note : In brief Göktürk Nation reflected the shape of this tool (bow-yay,moon-ay) completely to their writing system .

This symbol means tent . Four of the informants answer this symbol exactly. The other answers are fish-balık , cradle - beşik , cave - mağara , ram - koç , Horse - at , temple - tapınak (2) , leader - başkan , godess - tanrıça , animal- hayvan . Note : Because the houses were tents in Göktürk Nation , they reflected this residence to their writing system completely. However according to the answers it can be said that this symbol doesn't reflect its resemblance as much as "ok-arrow" and "bow-yay, moon-ay" .

This symbol means "to surrender-teslim olmak ( /iç/ in Göktürkish )". Because "to surrender" is a human peculiar activity , "person,body,etc.." can be acceptable. Therefore the answers are four of the informants give the exact answer. The other answers are : tree - ağaç (3), centrum - merkez, flower - çiçek, sling-sapan(3), special day-özel gün , way-yol , footprint of bird-kuş izi, sword-kılıç , cheer-sevinç.

These symbols point to the same thing : "horse-at". The informants are informed about this point. The answers are various : horse-at (3) , tree-ağaç(3) , forest-orman, tent-çadır (5), centre of population-yerleşim alanı (2), cloth-giysi, tunnel-geçit, cave-mağara.

This symbol indicates spear-mızrak. Twelve of the informants predict the meaing . The other answers are : narrow passage-dar geçit, desert - çöl, blief-inanç , truth-doğruluk, way-yol, stream-dere , flag pole- bayrak direği, tent pole-çadır direği.

Note : As well as "bow and arrow" , "spear-mızrak" resembles to its concrete form completely, degree of predictability is high.

This symbol means "human - insane (/er/ in Göktürkish )" . Seven of the informants predicted it exactly. The other answers are bird-kuş (4), tree-ağaç(2), nature-doğa, fear-korku, rain-yağmur, hunting area-av alanı , war tool-savaş aleti, tent-çadır, mountain-dağ.

These symbols have the same meaning : " fish net ". Five of the informants predict more or less the same meaning ; such as tool-alet , shovel-kürek harrow-tırmık, fork-çatal, axe-balta. The other answers are : devil - şeytan, car-araba(2) , children-çocuklar , dead body-ölü , eagle-kartal, way-yol (2) , rider- atlı , passage-geçit (2) , human-insan , temple-tapınak, tent of the leader-lider çadırı .

These symbols mean " door,entrance of a tent-çadır girişi (/aşık/ /eşik/ in Göktürkish). Thirteen of the informants write similar answers like tent,entrance,house,shelter, etc… The other answers are saddle-eyer, camp-kamp, stars-yıldızlar(2), community-topluluk, sorcerer-büyücü, area-arazi.

This symbol means "weed-ot". Two of the informants predicted the exact meaning. Interestingly eight of the informants write the answer as "sun-güneş". The other answers are river-akarsu, bird-kuş, entrance of the tent-çadır girişi, tunnel-tünel , blief-inanç, hand-el, mountain-dağ , bald-saçsız baş, spur-mahmuz, sky-gökyüzü.

This symbol means "valley-vadi". Four of the informants predicted the meaning more or less like: two mountains conjoint - iki dağ birleşimi, valley-vadi(2), delta -delta ovası . The answers are eternity-sonsuzluk, corporation , reconciliation- anlaşma (2), horse glasses-at gözlüğü, stubrun -inatçı , two tents conjoint-birleşmiş iki çadır, rocks-kayalık , mountains-dağlar, flag-bayrak(2), butterfly-kelebek (2), ribbon-kurdela ,fireplace-ocak ,cloud-bulut , joy-eğlence.

According to the answers of the informants the comments below can be reached :

5. CONCLUSION

In the study the elements , which unite applied linguistics and semiotics, are mentioned. As an intersection point of both; the alphabet is taken into consideration. In special , the semiotic elements of the Göktürk Alphabet are studied.

In the application part a survey , including eleven ideograms belonging to Göktürk Alphabet , is given to twenty informants. The findings of this survey support the semiotic features of the ideograms . However the aim of this comment is not to prove whether these symbols are really ideograms or not ; because the semiotic elements of a writing system is naturally time-dependant. In other words it can't be expected that the life conditions of those ages are still valid .

In conclusion according to the whole study it can be said that semiotics is a significant component of the origin of alphabet .

6. ) APPENDICES

The test is applied on 20 subjects, ten of them being ages between 20-35 and the other ten between 35-45 .

	SYMBOL	20-35 AGES		35-45 AGES
		ok	ok	ok	dip
		ok	yokuş	ok	ok
		yer	ok	mızrak	onama, tasdik
		ok	yer	ok	yıldırım
		ok	ok	aşağı	ok
		ay	yay	yay	çuval
		ekmek	tepedeki çadır	temizlik, iyilik	yarım daire
		ova	ay	yarım ay	paylaşım
		yay	ay	ay	ay
		yay	yay	doğru	yarım ay, yay
		tanrıça	mağara	koç	kuş
		bohça	ibadethane	dağ	at başı
		sığınak	hayvan	başkan	huzur
		çadır	tapınak	mağara girişi	-
		balık	beşik	vadi	çadır
		merkez	adam	ağaç	kuşun ayak izi
		sevinç	yol ayrımı	sapan	sapan
		kılıç	ağaç	özel gün	dua, dilek
		adam	ok	çiçek	ağaç
		ağaç	bitki	sapan	insan
		ev alanı	orman	at	giysi
		-	dağ	ağaç	at
		çadır	ev, çadır	çadır	barınak
		ağaç	mağara	atlı adam	-
		ev	geçit	yerleşim merkezi	ağaç
		göl	kılıç	mızrak, sopa	sopa
		sopa	yol	dere	sopa
		mızrak	inanç	dar geçit	doğruluk
		direk	mızrak	bayrak direği	çadır direği
		sopa	sopa	çubuk	savunma aleti
		yağmur	insan bedeni	insan	ağaç
		insan	ağaç	kuş	insan
		av alanı	korku	savaş aleti	doğa
		kollayan	dağ	insan	kuş, insan
		kuş	çadır	leylek	kadın
	....	yol	ata binmiş adan	kartal	balta
		tırmık	geçiş	şeytan, kötülük	kürek
		geçit	insan	tapınak	gülen ağlayan kişi
		çatal	liderin çadırı	ölü	araba
		alet	at arabası	spor yapan çocuklar	ikiye ayrılan yol
		topluluk	bey çadırı	çadır	çadır
		çatı	barınak	ev	eyer
		büyücü	yıldız	arazi	yıldızlar ve arayış
		çadır	çadır	çadır	çadır
		çadır	güneş	kamp, yerleşim alanı	çadır
		güneş	tünel	güneş	güneş
		güneş	çadır ve kapısı	dağ	mahmuz
		güneş	güneş	güneş	gökyüzü
		ot ve kaya	akarsu	el	güneş
		ağaç ve dağ	kuş	saçsız baş	inançla ilgili
		eğlence	kayalık	bayrak	ocak
		kurdele	dağlar yolu kapatmış	ıinatçılık	at gözlüğü
		vadi	bulut	yol kesişimi	birliktelik
		kelebek	vadi	el sıkışma	kelebek, kuş
2 dağ birleşimi		delta ovas	sonsuzluk	birleşme

 

7. ) REFERENCES