Türkçe dil bilgisi ve söz dizimi çalışmalarında özneyle ilgili birbirinden oldukça farklı görüşler ileri sürülür. Özne farklı tanım ve yaklaşımların etkisiyle söz dizimi incelemelerinde karmaşık ve içinden çıkılmaz bir hâl almış, çeşitli şekillerde ortaya çıkan bir dil bilgisi sorununa dönüşmüştür. Türkçe söz diziminde öznenin ne tanım ve uygulamalarında ne de öznenin biçim birimi ve türleri konusunda tam bir birlik vardır. Özne belirlenirken çoğu zaman benzer örneklerden benzer sonuçlara gidilmiş, yapılan tanımların dışına çıkacak örneklerden kaçınılmış ya da görmezden gelinmiştir. Türkçede özne dilin farklı düzlemleriyle olan organik ilişkisinden dolayı farklı dil bilgisel ve işlevsel ilişkileriyle betimlenir. Bu yaklaşım öznenin gerçek kimliğini tespit etmeyi hayli zorlaştırmıştır. Öznenin dilin mantıksal, anlam bilimsel, edim bilimsel ve söz dizimsel ilişkileriyle birlikte tanımlanması öznenin tanımı, türleri ve biçim birimi gibi temel sorunların ortaya çıkışına yol açmıştır. Öznenin söz konusu sorunları cümlenin ayrı dil düzlemlerinde değerlendirilmesiyle ancak aşılabilir. Özne söz dizimsel düzlemde cümlenin yalın durum ekli birincil bileşenini ifade eder. Mantıksal düzlemde öznenin fiilin çatısına bağlı olarak birinci ya da ikinci üyelerini yüklenebildiği görülür. Özne anlam bilimsel düzlemde eden, deneyimci, tetikleyici, sebep, etkilenen, konu vs. çeşitli anlamsal rolleri temsil edebilir. Edim bilimsel düzlemde ise özne bilgi yapısının temel unsurları olan odak ve konu bileşenlerini kodlayabilir

In this study it has been aimed to present the main reasons of subject problem and relations betwen subject and other levels of syntax, and to suggest linguistic a approach which can be solve the problems such as definition, types and morphem of subject. In Turkish the subject has been described in terms of different grammatical and functional relations since the subject has different organic relations betwen levels of language. This apraoch has highly prevented determining real identity. To describe the subject with logical, semantic, pragmatic and syntactic components of language has caused the main problems such as definition, types and morphem of subject. This problems of subject can only be overcomed when the sentence is analyzed in the separate levels of language. In the syntactic level subject is immediate cunstituent that is nominative case in sentence. In the logical level subject can be first or second argument according to voice of verb. In the semantic level subject represents various semantic roles such as agent, experiencer, instigator, causer, patient and theme etc. In the pragmatic level subject can code the focus and topic which are main components of information structure There are various approaches to the matter of subject in the literature on Turkish grammar and syntax. Subject has become a complex and entangled phenomena due to many different definitions and approaches, and turned into a grammatical issue that surfaces in various forms. In Turkish syntax, there is no consensus on the definition and application of subject or the types and morphological structure of subject. In identifying subject most of the time similar outcomes were found based on similar samples, and those samples that would be beyond the existing definitions were avoided or ignored. This study aims to identify the main reasons regarding the problem of subject and its relationship with other structures of syntax; and offer a linguistic approach that can provide a solution to a number of main issues such as identifying subject, types of subject and morphological structure of subject. It is aimed by this approach to establish a new way of syntactic analysis. The theoretical framework of the study is primarily based on valency grammar and functional grammar as well as other linguistic approaches. In Turkish syntax subject has mostly been analysed in line with other structures of language. Subject has been interpreted as both a logical member and a semantic role, both a syntactic/grammatical element necessary for the sentence structure and a person, a phenomena or an object that is talked about, namely theme. The reason why there are different definitions and types of subject in Turkey Turkish is that it is proposed that subject can be realised with different morphological case markers by different suffixes connecting with different words; that subject and other linguistic relations are reduced down to the argument structure of the verb, semantic and pragmatic functions; and that the standards that are used to identify the relationships belonging different structures of language are utilised individually or as a whole. Maintaining this attitude will increase uncertainty and complexity about subject. The syntactic structure of a sentence in Turkey Turkish can be analysed according to various structures, and the structures the previously mentioned phenomenon such as subject, argument/complement, agent and theme belong to (Ugurlu, 1999: 64). It needs to be decided by analysing what structure of language subject belongs to or what criterion should be used while identifying subject. The discrepancy in the definition and application of subject, types of subject and morphological structure of subject could only be identified by handling the issue within its own structure and analysing its functional relations with different structures of language. A sentence can be analysed on four different structures; logical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Subject has various relations with other phenomena or functions in other structures. Subject, as a syntactic/grammatical function, can coincide with semantic and pragmatic functions such as agent and topic or theme (Dik, 1980: 3). It is possible for syntactic, semantic and pragmatic functions to intersect with each other in the same phenomena in a sentence although the coding procedures of these functions onto the phenomenon in the sentence are partially independent of each other (Dik, 1980: 3; 1989: 24; Brown & Miller, 1991: 314). It could be assumed that subject and other grammatical relations can be understood better by linking subject and other grammatical relations with semantic and pragmatic roles within the framework of their relations with semantics and pragmatics (Comrie, 2005: 86, 87). However, subject and other grammatical relations do not always coincide with the same functions. Although grammatical relations such as subject and object are connected with certain relations about semantic and pragmatic relations, they are actually different from them; syntax has meaning and function; that is, it has complex grammatical relations that cannot be reduced down to semantic and pragmatic functions (Comrie, 2005: 86). In grasping better the concept of subject, taking into consideration it with its semantic and pragmatic functions would not bias its grammatical/syntactic role. However, it is observed that in the past that semantic and pragmatic functions of subject in Turkish were emphasised more than its syntactic/grammatical functions and these functions became too intertwined to distinguish from each other. It is necessary for the problem of subject in Turkey Turkish to be solved to identify the syntactic/grammatical functions of subject and separate them from its semantic and pragmatic functions. Subject in a language is the immediate non-case-marked constituent of a sentence on the syntactic structure. On the logical structure, subject is able to have primary and secondary arguments depending on the voice of the verb predicate. On the semantic structure, subject can represent the roles such as agent, experiencer, cause, patient and theme. On the pragmatic structure, subject can code topic and focus, the main components of the information structure.While languages have various ways of realising subject, individual languages may have their individual procedures of realising subject. If in a language certain subjects have different morphological case markers, there are different procedures for subject-verb agreement and it can be realised in different positions, then that language can be assumed to have different ways of realising subject (Woolford, 2009: 17). In Turkish subject does not have different ways of realisation from a syntactic point of view. In Turkish subject is a component of the syntactic and grammatical structure of a sentence and it is always unmarked in the syntactic structure. Subject in Turkish, except for the sentences formed with impersonal verbs, is always a prerequisite for the grammatical structure of a sentence, a main syntactic position where different logical and semantic arguments of a verb are mapped, and a grammatical relation. Although subject in Turkish does not have any other ways of marking apart from the nominative case (unmarked), it has various ways of realisation. The Overt Subject, realising as the immediate constituent of the sentence in the deep structure, can be realised overtly or covertly in the surface structure. Subject in Turkish may not be realised in the surface structure in certain linguistic contexts where it refers to pronouns via personal markers. That subject is not realised in the surface structure does not mean the sentence does not have a subject. Whether subject is realised in its syntactic location or not, or that it is realised in different syntactic locations has different pragmatic functions (Zimmer, 1986, 196). Conclusion Subject has complex grammatical and functional relations with different structures of language. This naturally makes it difficult to identify and define the actual role of subject. Not differentiating between the grammatical and functional relations of subject has made it almost impossible to identify subject and other syntactic constituents in sentence analysis. Syntactic analysis in Turkish can be made by taking into consideration different language structures which subject has functional relations. First of all, subject needs to be considered as a structural constituent of the syntactic structure of the sentence and kept separated from its functional relations with other structures. The functional relations of subject with logical, semantic and pragmatic structures should be analysed individually. It is seen that this approach enables a more plausible analysis that identifies the different dimensions of a sentence. Analysing subject within its own linguistic structure and identifying its functional relations with other linguistic structures has the potential to eliminate the problems occurring in Turkish syntax regarding the definition, morphological structure and types of subject.