Semiotic analysis of three poems written by Orhan Veli Kanik in 1945

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF THREE POEMS WRITTEN BY ORHAN VELI KANIK IN 1945

Kuzu Fatih,

Institute of Philology of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Summary

Ferdinand de Saussure thought that semiotics, reading a work together with its indicators, would bring different perspectives to the work. Saussure emphasized that understanding the signs in the work is important for understanding the work. Artworks bearing traces of the culture which they emerged in contain many indicators due to the traces they carry and due to the layers of meaning of these traces. The element that distinguishes these indicators from other indicators in our lives is that they have appeared with aesthetic concern. Semiotics has taken an important role in the examination of literary works with the opportunities it offers to the researcher. In addition, he made contributions to the semiotic analysis method. Especially in recent years, semiotic studies have increased in our country. Semiotics has played an important role in the interpretation and explanation of literary works in research. Literary works are open to different readings. However, poetry has the feature of revealing different meanings in every reader and every reading. Examining the poems of important poets in our literature in the context of semiotics will facilitate the understanding of these poets by the reader and will reveal their different aspects that have not attracted attention until now. This study is about the semiotic analysis of three poems «Bir Roman Kahramani», «Istanbul Turkusu» and «Gideray- ak» written by Orhan Veli Kanik in 1945. These poems are analysed in terms of «Deep Structure» and «Surface Structure». As a result of the analysis, the symbols and sub-meanings in the poems were determined. This analysis does not contain definitive judgments, but it is an effort to present different perspectives on poems within the scope of semiotic theory. In this case, the aim of examining the poems is to reveal what the poet wants to say and to make the poems more understandable based on the words the poet uses.

The Republican Era has been an important point in the development process of our poetry tradition. In the era when the tradition of poetry began to change with the Tanzimat Era, it is seen that the diversity in the understanding of art increased even more in the Republican Era. Orhan Veli Kanik, who adopted and pioneered Garip Poetry* in this period, has occupied an important position thanks to the changes he made in poetry. It has been determined that the verse forms are not regular in the surface structures of his poems, and that there are different messages given to the reader in the lines where these changes occur by changing the stereotyped verse forms of the tradition. However, in the poems of Orhan Veli, who stated that he was against the tradition, the traces of the folk literature tradition were also detected, even though they were not seen regularly.

Key words: Orhan Veli Kanik, Semiotics, deep structure, surface structure, analysis of poetry.

Анотація

Кузу Ф.

Семіотичний аналіз три поем, написаних Орханом Велі Каником у 1945 році.

Фердинанд де Соссюр вважав, що семіотика, прочитавши твір разом з його показниками, принесе у творчість різні точки зору. Сосюр підкреслив, що розуміння знаків у творі важливо для розуміння твору. Твори мистецтва, що містять відбитки культури, в якій вони виникли, містять багато показників через це і через прошарки значення цих відбитків. Елементом, що відрізняє ці показники від інших показників у нашому житті, є те, що вони з'явилися з естетичною важливістю. Семіотика відіграла важливу роль в дослідженні літературних творів з можливостями, які вона пропонує досліднику. Крім того, він зробив внесок у метод семіотичного аналізу. Особливо в останні роки в нашій країні почали зростати семіотичні дослідження. Семіотика відіграла важливу роль у тлумаченні та поясненні літературних творів у дослідженнях. Літературні твори відкриті для різного читання. Однак поезія має особливість розкривати різні значення у кожного читача та кожного читання. Вивчення віршів важливих поетів нашої літератури в контексті семіотики полегшить розуміння читачами цих поетів та розкриє їх різні аспекти, які не привертали уваги дотепер. У цьому дослідженні йдеться про семіотичний аналіз три віршів «Герой роману», «Стамбульська народна пісня» та «Гідераяк» написані Орханом Велі Каником у 1945 р. Ці вірші проаналізовано з точки зору «Глибокої структури» та «Поверхневої структури». В результаті аналізу були визначені символи та підзначення у віршах. Цей аналіз не містить остаточних суджень, але це спроба представити різні погляди на вірші в рамках семіотичної теорії. У цьому випадку мета вивчення віршів - розкрити те, що хоче сказати поет, і зробити вірші більш зрозумілими на основі слів, які вживає поет.

Республіканська ера була важливим моментом у процесі розвитку нашої поетичної традиції. В епоху, коли традиція поезії почала змінюватися з епохою Танзімата, видно, що різноманітність у розумінні мистецтва ще більше зросла в епоху республіканців. Орхан Велі Каник, який у цей період прийняв і започаткував поезію Гаріпа, зайняв важливе місце завдяки змінам, які він зробив у поезії. Визначено, що форми вірша не є закономірними у поверхневих структурах його віршів, і що існують різні повідомлення, що передаються читачеві у рядках, де ці зміни відбуваються шляхом зміни традиційних стереотипних віршованих форм. Однак у віршах Орхана Велі, який заявив, що він суперечить традиції, також були виявлені відбитки традиції народної літератури, хоча вони й не зустрічалися регулярно.

Ключові слова: Орхан Велі Каник, семіотика, глибока структура, поверхнева структура, аналіз поезії.

Semiotics

The word translated into Turkish as «gostergebilim» is expressed with the word semiotics in the American tradition with the influence of Charles Sanders Peirce, and with the word semiology in the European tradition with the influence of Ferdinand de Saussure [1]. Semiotic, of Greek origin, means signifier (symbol). Derived from the same root, «semantics» also tries to explain what a text or word means. Semiotics asserts that every being in life has a meaning for another being and examines this thought. In this study, the concepts of sign, signifier and signified are important. The sign is a string consisting of various units such as natural languages (for example, Turkish, French, English, Chinese, etc.) that people create and use in order to communicate with each other in a community life, various gestures (hand-arm-head movements), manual alphabet, traffic signs, some profession banners used in groups (e.g. sailors' pennants), advertising posters, fashion and architectural arrangements, literature, painting, music, etc. Garip (Turkish: strange, peculiar I poor, forlorn),a group of Turkish poets also known as the First New Movement was composed of Orhan Veli, Oktay Rifat and Melih Cevdet. The name "Garip" signalled a break with the conventional, decadent style of Turkish poetry and literature at the time.

These strings create a whole of meaning with different tools (sound, image, color, etc.) in different fields. The units of meaningful wholes are also called sign [2]. Although the sign is not the situation, object or phenomenon it represents, that situation gives us information about the object or phenomenon [3]. In other words, although it is not that thing, every tool that communicates by evoking that thing is a sign. A traffic sign, a picture and a word, like the vehicle that shows how much gasoline is in the gas tank, are all signs [4]. The signifier is the phonetic representation, the signified is the concept itself, and these two form the sign. Barthes expresses this relationship between the signifier, the signified and the sign as follows: A sign is composed of a signifier and a signified. The level of the signifiers forms the level of expression, and the level of the signified forms the level of content [5]. In this case, a signifier and a signified are needed for the sign to exist.

Semiotics is the study that methodically tries to explain what symbols, signs, tokens, coats of arms, emblems, badges, colors and many other elements mean, and what people who see them and deal with them should understand. Semiotics is a field of study that includes linguistics as it does not include only sounds or writing and is more inclusive by considering that almost everything is a sign. Saussure argued that language is not an innate product, but emerged as a result of human production. In short, according to Saussure, society creates its own language [1]. The language created by the society changes and develops over time, and every individual who joins the society communicates using the language that is readily available. Saussure expressed the difference between the new individuals joining the society and the existing language of the society with the concepts of langua and parole, that is, language and word. If we define these concepts briefly, langua, that is language, is common to all; parole, on the other hand, is the word that the person chooses from the language that everyone knows.

The first activity, semiology, which examines the signs in terms of communication, says that it adopts a 'realistic' approach and approaches 'language' and 'language competence' in the superficial dimension (the observed dimension), as if it were describing observable, concrete, physical objects that exist in nature. This approach, which mostly uses linguistic methods, is also called communicative semiotics [2]. Umberto Eco approaches semiotics from a different angle and states that semiotics and cultural phenomena are examined and evaluated. Semiotics has a signification purpose, helps the emergence of meaning and making sense of this process. With this aspect, semiotics has the feature of deciphering and opens a new window in the examination of works and brings different readings with it. Semiotics investigates the mechanism of human being to create signs, to form a system with signs, and to communicate through them [4].

Semiotics, which examines and gives meaning to cultural phenomena, written texts, music, and human behaviours, has certainly made an important impact in the field of language and literature. Poetry's power of imagination, presentation, feeling, the emotional value that words arouse in the individual and the fact that the individual creates an imaginary world with words are among the features that make poetry poetry [6]. With these features, poetry enters the field of study of semiotics. Language, i.e. langua, which is the common product of society, becomes a word, or parole, by forming a syntax with the choice of poets. So in terms of originality, dexterity is not in langua, it is to create a style by making langua its own parol [1]. Greimas shares his views by saying that poetic semiotics is valid for the type of poetry he thinks has certain values in the details of the narratives:

a) Poetic discourse is not in the same extension as the concept of literature.

b) In principle, it is independent of the language in which it occurs.

c) Its perception as both a 'poetic' and a 'sacred' discourse is based on the semantic activities of a special class of discourses [7].

It is understood from Greimas' views that these distinctive features of poetry from other genres require using different methods of analysis. J.C. Coquet mentions the following four levels for the semiotic approach in poetry studies:

a) Grammatical parallels -or distortions-

b) Parallelisms - or distortions - of traditional forms (line, meter, rhyme...)

c) Parallelisms - or distortions - of vocal harmony

d) Semantic parallels- or distortions- [7].

The four levels that Coquet points out are Chomsky's explanations of the terms deep structure and surface structure. Influenced by Port-Royal, Chomsky focuses on two terms: «deep structure» and «surface structure». These two terms are important in semiotic analysis of texts. Deep structure corresponds to structures that are thought to be deep in the mind, prioritizing phonetic use of language, and involving semantic interpretation of syntax. The surface structure, on the other hand, is the form of deep structures that have been exposed through various transformations and opened to the surface [8]. Each narrative has two structures of the word, deep and surface. Greimas says that it is possible to analyse texts at three levels: superficial, semantic and syntactic. Considering that the texts are a whole, it is important to examine each level in order to receive the text because when the texts are analysed from this point of view, three different reception possibilities are provided. While the deep structure reveals the hidden meanings of the work, the surface structure can be thought of as the interpretation of the sounds in the work. «I didn't hear what they were saying because I was listening to music.» What is meant by the sentence? Did I not hear what you said or what he said? It is difficult to find the answer to this question in the surface structure of the sentence because although it seems like a single sentence, it can be said to consist of the following two sentences:

1. I was listening to music so I didn't hear what you said.

2. I was listening to music so I didn't hear what he was saying.

Since language consists of signs, the surface structure is «signifier»; the deep structure is seen as the «shown» side. While the surface structure constitutes the tangible side of the language that can be seen and heard, the deep structure indicates the assumed. Surface structure shows the spoken-written side of language; the deep structure shows the conceived, perceived side, that is, its meaning [9]. Deep structure can also be thought of as filling the gaps left in the surface structure. Because the remaining gaps in the surface structure are completed by the deep structure. «I was going to attend the graduation ceremony, but I broke my foot the day before the ceremony.» In the expression, the surface structure will be perceived as follows in the deep structure:

«I was going to attend the graduation ceremony.» (1)

«However, I could not attend the graduation ceremony. (2)

«I couldn't attend the graduation ceremony because I broke my foot the day before the ceremony. (3)

As can be seen, expressions written in bold are examples of filling in the gaps of the deep structure. literary semiotics orhan poem

Practice. The effort of Orhan Veli Kanik, one of there preventatives of the Garip movement, to go beyond the understanding of poetry that continued until his time, made his poems open to semiotic analysis. The semiotic analysis of the changes he made in syntax and in the interpretation of poetry will contribute to making these poems more understandable. In addition, thanks to semiotic analysis, it will be possible to more clearly identify the changes that Orhan Veli Kanik made or tried to make in poetry. First of all, we will analyse the grammatical features of the poems, namely the surface structures, and then the meanings of the words in the contexts they are in, namely the deep structure.

BIR ROMAN KAHRAMANI

Qadirimin ustune yagmur yagiyor,

Saros korfezinden ruzgar esiyordu,

Ve ben, bir roman kahramani,

Ot yatagin iqinde,

ikinci dunya harbinde,

Ba^ucumda zeytinyagi yakarak

Mevzuumu ya^amaya qali^iyordum;

Bir §ehirde ba§layip

Kim bilir nerde,

Kim bilir ne gun bitecek mevzuumu. [10].

A. Surface Structure. The poem consists of ten lines. These ten lines, which are different from the traditional verse forms, do not show an order in terms of measure. When the syllables in the lines are counted, an irregular structure is seen as

12+12+9+7+8+11+13+7+5+12.

This irregularity supports Orhan Veli Kanik's stance against rhythm in poetry. However, there is no rhyme scheme. When the line endings are examined, it is seen that the rhyme scheme is irregular. Only the words «iginde / harbinde» at the end of the fourth and fifth lines are compatible. In addition, it is seen that rich rhyme is used in these lines. Sentences do not end in a single line but continue in the next line(s). In the poem, commas, semicolons and periods are used. There is no period in the completed sentences in the poem. The period is used only at the end of the last sentence of the poem. This period marks the end of the poem. The verbs «yag-, es-, yak-, ya§a-, gali§-, ba§la-, bil-, bit-» are used in the poem. The verbs «ba§la-» and «bit-» have antonyms. This contrast also expresses a process: starting a task and completing it. Three noun phrases and six adjective phrases are used in the poem. As in the example of «Qadirimin ustune», the definite noun phrase is included, while in the example of «Saros korfezi» «, the noun phrase without a modifier is used. Except for the conjunction «ve» seen at the beginning of the third line, no conjunctions are used. In the poem, the vowel «a» 26 times, «i» 19 times, «e» 15 times and «u» 11 times is used. The excessive use of vowels and especially the vowel «a» is an indication of the pessimism in the poem and the complex, buzzing life of the subject of the poem. The words «Kim bilir» and «mevzuumu» are repeated in the poem. The repetition of these words gives a clue about the mood of the subject of the poem. Apart from the word repetition, it is also seen that there are additional repetitions. The locative case suffix is seen in the words «iginde, harbinde, baucumda, §ehirde». The ablative case suffix is seen in the word «korfezinden «. The fact that the ablative case suffix is used less than the locative case suffix in the poem shows the stagnation and indecision.

B. Deep Structure. The pessimism that the subject of the poem is in and the state of being stuck in life dominate in poetry. The phrases «yagmur yagmasi» and «ruzgarin esmesi» at the beginning of the poem create this gloomy and pessimistic atmosphere.

/Qadirimin ustune yagmur yagiyor/ -

/Saros korfezinden ruzgar esiyordu/

/ikinci dunya harbinde/

The subject of the poem likened his life to a novel and saw himself as a hero of this novel. The following lines show that the subject likens his life to a novel.

«Mevzuumu ya^amaya gali^iyordum;

Bir §ehirde ba^layip

Kim bilir nerde,

Kim bilir ne gun bitecek mevzuumu.»

It is clear in which city and when life began. However, it is unclear where and when it will end. There is a poetic subject who tries to live his «mevzuunu» in this obscurity, and his «mevzuu» is life itself. In addition, the phrase «Saros Korfezinde» is an indication of being stuck in a narrow space. The word «Korfez» is the name given to the sea, which is squeezed into a narrow area and inserted into the land. The fact that the vast sea is squeezed into a narrow space is an indication that people are stuck in the face of the eternity of life. The phrase «ikinci dunya harbinde» also refers to the troubles in the life lived. The phrases «Ot yatagin iginde» and «ba^ucumda zeytinyagi yakarak» point to the difficulties of this war. It does not indicate a life of comfort and abundance, but a life of distress and poverty.

/ikinci dunya harbi/

Helplessness/ Vulnerability

/Qadir/ --»

As can be seen above, the vulnerability and helplessness of the subject, who says that he stayed in a tent made of cloth instead of a solid house made of stone during the war years, is shown in the poem. In addition, since the tent is portable, it also shows that it is not fixed and does not belong to a place. The effort of the subject of the poem, who has a pessimistic mood in all these difficulties and troubles, to hold on to life can be understood from the expression «Mevzuumu yaamaya galiiyordum». This expression has been the indicator of the subject of the poem, who does not give up despite the difficulties of life and all the negativity, and resists to live.

ISTANBUL TURKUSU

Istanbul'da, Bogazigi'nde,

Bir fakir Orhan Veli'yim;

Veli'nin ogluyum,

Tarifsiz kederler iginde.

Urumelihisari'na oturmu^um;

Oturmu§ da bir turku tutturmu^um:

«Istanbulun mermer ta§lari;

Ba§ima da konuyor, konuyor aman, marti ku§lari;

Gozlerimden bo^anir hicran ya^lari;

Edali'm,

Senin yuzunden bu halim.»

«Istanbulun orta yeri sinema;

Garipligim, mahzunlugum duyurmayin anama;

El konu^ur, sevi§irmi§; bana ne?

Sevdali'm,

Boynuna vebalim!»

Istanbul'da, Bogazigi'ndeyim;

Bir fakir Orhan Veli;

Veli'nin oglu;

Tarifsiz kederler igindeyim. [10].

A. Surface Structure. The poem consists of twenty lines as 4+2+3+2+3+2+4. The number of syllables in the lines is not equal, so the poem has no regular meter. The rhyme scheme of the poem is abab/ bb/cccbb/ ddebb/ baab/. It is seen that there is no order in the rhyme scheme. Lines ten, eleven, fifteen and sixteen are indented. They are also placed at the end of line above. The fact that the lines are indented creates irregularity in terms of form, while the fact that these lines are rhymed in the form of bb has created an order in itself. The meaning is not completed in one line but continues in the next line(s). The continuation of the meaning in the next lines makes the poem to be written in colloquial language. Punctuation marks have been paid attention to in the poem. Six times commas, ten times semicolons, once colons, ten times an apostrophe, three times a period, once a question mark, once an exclamation point and four times quotation marks are used. Commas are used to separate sequential sentences, to explain and to separate synonyms. Semicolons are used to separate sequential sentences with commas between their elements. The colon used is placed before the speech. Suffixes for proper nouns are separated with an apostrophe, as in the example of «istanbul'da». Another task of the apostrophe in the poem is to use the first person singular possessive suffix, as in the example of «Edali'm». This use of the apostrophe indicates that a special person is being addressed. Calling and speaking sentences in the poem are indicated with quotation marks. The period at the end of the first stanza and at the end of the last stanza indicates the end of the sentence. The locative case suffix is used in the words «istanbul'da, Bogazigi'nde, iginde» and repeated twice in the poem. Five adjective phrases (Tarifsiz kederler, bir turku, bir fakir Orhan Veli, bir fakir Orhan Veli'yim, tarifsiz kederler) and ten noun phrases («Veli'nin ogluyum», «Istanbulun mermer ta§lari», «hicran ya^lari», «senin yuzunden», «halim», «Istanbulun orta yeri», «garipligim», «mahzunlugum», «vebalim», «Veli'nin oglu») are used. In some phrases, as in the example of «Garipligim», the modifier is omitted, and in the example of «Istanbulun mermer ta§lari», the adjective is inserted between the modifier and the noun. The verbs «otur-» and «kon-» are used twice in the poem; «bo§an- «, «tuttur-», «duyur-», «sevi§-» are used once. Nine verbs are used in total. The plurality of verbs has taken the poem away from stagnation and made it active.

B. Deep Structure. The sentence «Bir fakir Orhan Veli'yim» in the second line of the poem shows that the subject of the poem is the poet, Orhan Veli himself. The poet describes himself as «Fakir, garip, mahzun». Orhan Veli Kanik, one of our poets, who is against the use of noble people in poetry, included his own life in this poem he wrote and showed the reader that this life is an ordinary life. The fact that a «fakir, garip, mahzun» sings a «turku» is also an indication of closeness to the public. Poetry has a story in itself, the subject of the poem begins by telling who he is, where and how he is in the first stanza. In the two lines that come after this stanza, he states that he sat in Urumelihisari and started to sing a song. In the lines between seven and sixteen, we see the song he sings. In addition, the title of the poem, «Istanbul Turkusu «, also refers to the folk song that the poet chants in Istanbul. The folk song is what the poet wants to express. What is said here and the folk song form is an indication of the closeness of the poem to the public. In these lines, the poet's troubles also emerged.

«Urumelihisari/ Istanbulun mermer talari/ Gozlerimden bo^anir hicran yalari» expressions indicate graveyard and separation. The reason why Urumelihisari shows the cemetery is due to the fact that A§iyan Cemetery is seen when viewed from Rumelihisari. The marble stones in the expression « istanbul'un mermer ta§lari» show the tombstones. In addition to this, the expression «Gozlerimden boanir hicran ya^lari» also shows the sadness and pain of the people in the cemetery. The subject of the poem or the poet, who calls out to his lover, states that the reason for these pains is his lover, « Edali'm/ Senin yuzunden bu halim». Therefore, it is not clear whether the «mezarlik» in the above table refers to the death of the lover or the emotional death brought about by the separation. However, one of the sorrows of being separated from the lover shown is that it brings with it. And the poet expresses his feelings by establishing a relationship between space and human. While the subject of the poem, the poet, calls not only to his beloved but also to those around him while speaking. The following sentence demonstrates this: «Garipligim, mahzunlugum duyurmayin anama». He does not want his mother to hear this grieving that comes with separation. The sentence «Garipligim, mahzunlugum duyurmayin anama» is hidden in the sentence «?unku annem benim boylesi kederli oldugumu ve aci ^ektigimi ogrenirse uzulur.» The subject of the poem is unresponsive to what is happening around him, along with the grief he experiences. He does not feel jealousy towards the reunions of others.

These turned out to be:

El konu^ur sevi§irmi§; bana ne?> Indifference

The subject of the poem repeated the first stanza in the last stanza -with some additional changes- to emphasize the pain he suffered. Therefore, this poem is a poem in which the subject of the poem, who reproaches his beloved because of the pain he has suffered due to separation, expresses his feelings.

GIDERAYAK

Handan, hamamdan gegtik,

Gun i^igindaki hissemize raziydik;

Saadetinden gegtik,

Umidine raziydik;

Higbirini bulamadik;

Kendimize huzunler icadettik,

Avunamadik;

Yoksa biz...

Biz bu dunyadan degil miydik? [10].

А. Surface Structure. The poem consists of nine lines in one piece. The rhyme scheme is «aaaaaaba». Four commas and semicolons, one question mark and an ellipsis are used. Commas are used to separate sequential sentences and to separate synonyms. Semicolons are used to separate the sequential sentences with a comma between them. The ellipsis appears at the end of the incomplete sentence. The question mark is used at the end of the question sentence in the last line of the poem. The poem is written in the second person plural. Four ablative case suffixes «handan», «hamamdan», «saadetinden», «dunyadan») are used. Frequent use of the ablative case suffix is compatible with the title «Giderayak». A departure indicates moving forward. In the poem, the verbs «geg-» and «razi (ol-)» are used twice. The verbs «icat et-» , «avun-» and «bulama-» are used once. Although it is a short poem, the use of so many verbs makes the reader feel the movement and speed in the poem. In addition, these verbs are conjugated with the past tense. The fact that the verbs are conjugated with the past tense shows that the aforementioned events took place and ended. The last word of the eighth line of the poem, «Biz», is also the first word of the ninth line. At the end of the poem, it is seen that the emphasis is placed on «biz». In the question posed in the last line, the arts of istifam and tecahul-i arif are also used. This example is the exception of Orhan Veli Kanik's attitude that stands against the rhetoric in poetry. In addition, an ironic attitude is displayed with the art of tecahul-i arif.

В. Deep Structure. The subject who speaks with the pronoun «we» in the poem has expectations from life; however, these expectations were not met. /Han/ _/Hamam/ Wealthiness

The subject of the poem stated that he gave up wealthiness by saying «handan hamamdan gegtik». Both «Han» and «hamam» are indicators of wealthiness in Turkish. Therefore, this sentence is an indication of giving up wealth. The expression «daha fazla beklentimiz yoktu, gun i^igindaki hissemizle de yetinecektik» is hidden in the sentence «Gun i^igindaki hissemize raziydik». The reproach of the person who expects little things from the world but cannot even have these little things is shown in the sentences «Higbirini bulamadik» and «Biz bu dunyadan degil miydik?». The expression «Kendimize huzunler icat ettik/ Avunamadik» is an indicator of the sentence «Bekledigimiz hayatin gergekle^medigini gorunce ba§ka dertlerle kendimizi me§gul edip bunu unutmaya gali§tik ancak bu da bize yetmedi».

The title of the poem is «Giderayak» and the past tense conjugations used in the verbs show that the end of life is approaching, old age has come and it is not possible to go back. The subject, questioning life and confronting himself «at the last moment», complained that the life he left behind was not the life he wanted. The significance of «bizim di^imizdakiler istediklerine ula§tilar; bir tek biz istedigimizi alamadik» is within the sentence «Biz dunyadan degil miydik?» Therefore, a reproach has been made that the world does not provide equal conditions for people.

Conclusion

Artworks bearing traces of the culture in which they emerged contain many indicators due to the traces they carry and the layers of meaning of these traces. The element that distinguishes these indicators from other indicators in our lives is that they appear with aesthetic concern. Just as different signs have different meanings, the same sign can have different meanings in different societies. For this reason, different methods are used when examining the indicators and the literary indicators, which is our subject. Each method used examines and reveals a different aspect of the work. Semiotics has taken an important role in the analysis of literary works with the opportunities it offers to the researcher. Different understandings of poetry have taken place in our long- established poetry tradition, and almost all of these understandings have contributed to the development of our poetry tradition and literature. The Republican Period has been an important point in the development process of our poetry tradition.

In the period when the tradition started to change with the Tanzimat* * The Tanzimat (Ottoman Turkish: lit. 'Reorganization') was a period of reform with the purpose, not of radical transformation, but of modernization, desiring to consolidate the social and political foundations of the Ottoman Empire that began in 1839., it is seen that the diversity in the understanding of art increased even more in the Republican Period. Orhan Veli Kanik, who adopted and pioneered Garip Poetry in this period, has an important place with the changes he made in poetry. The poems of Orhan Veli Kanik, who break the patterns of tradition in his poems and include daily spoken language and folk sayings in his poems, are open to semiotic analysis. It has been determined that Orhan Veli benefits from intertextuality in his poems that we have examined in the context of deep and surface structure. Elements that show that he is the subject he uses in his poems have been identified. From this point of view, we think that Orhan Veli expressed what he wanted to express in his inner world through the subjects in his poems, provided that we do not go beyond our purpose. Obviously, the work of art is the reflection of the artist's inner world and emotions. However, what we mean here is a poet who both wants to hide himself and says «I am here». It has been determined that the verse forms of his poems are not regular in the surface structures, and that there are different messages given to the reader in the lines where these changes occur by changing the stereotypical verse forms of the tradition. However, in the poems of Orhan Veli, who said that he was against the tradition, traces of the folk literature tradition were identified, although not regularly.

References

1. Demirci K. Turkoloji igin dilbilim-konular kavramlar teoriler. Ani Yaymcilik, 2017. P. 46-63.

2. Rifat M. Gostergebilimin abc'si. Say Yayinlari, 2009. P. 12-23.

3. Qigek M. Semiyoloji ve Semiyotik Uzerine Dujunceler. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication. 2016. Vol. 6. Issue 2. P. 137-147.

4. Erkman F. Gostergebilime girij. Alan Yaymcilik, 1987. P. 10-22.

5. Barthes R. Gostergebilimsel seruven. Yapi Kredi Yayinlari, 1993. 41 p.

6. ijeri K., Demirgunej S. «Sessiz Gemi» §iirinin Anlambilimsel/Gostergebilimsel incelenmesi. Journal of Turkish Studies. 2008. Vol. 3. Issue 4. P. 499-511.

7. Gokalp G. Gostergebilim Agisindan Bir §iir Degerlendirmesi: `Bir Sozlukte Kitap Adlan», Pars Yili, Prof. Dr. Dursun Yildirim Armagani, Edt. 0. Qobanoglu, M. Ozaraslan, 1998. P. 363-378.

8. Muldur F. Noam Chomsky'de Uretici Dilbilgisi: Derin Yapi ve Yuzey Ayrimi. Kaygi- Bursa Uludag Universitesi Fen- Edebiyat Fakultesi Felsefe Dergisi. 2016. Issue 27. P. 59-74.

9. Ustunova K. (2010) «Yuzey Yapi ve Derin Yapi Kavramlari Uzerine». Journal of Turkish Studies. 2010. Vol. 5. Issue 4. P. 697-704.

10. Kanik, O.V. (1999) «Butun §iirleri», Adam Yayincilik

Размещено на Allbest.ru