Bu çalışmada, Batı Türkçesinin ilk evresi olan Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde iç cümle öznesinin aldığı genitif durum eki, Minimalist Program çerçevesinde, derlem tabanlı bir yaklaşımla incelenmiştir. Türkiye Türkçesinde iç cümlenin öznesi, –DIk, -AcAk ve –mA morfemleri ile adlaştırılmış yüklemlerle uyuma girerek genitif durumla yüklenmektedir. Genitif durum yükleme ise iç cümle içerisinde gerçekleşmektedir. Türkçenin tarihî dönemlerinden biri olan Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde ise kısmen Türkiye Türkçesiyle paralellik göstermektedir. Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde iç cümle yükleminin adlaştırılması –DIk ve –AcAk morfemleri ile yapılırken iç cümle öznesi tıpkı Türkiye Türkçesinde olduğu gibi bu morfemleri almış adlaştırılmış yüklemle uyuma girmektedir. Yapılan incelemede Türkiye Türkçesindeki adcıl uyum gösteren yapılardaki durum yetkilendirmede görülmeyen nominatif durum yetkilendirmenin de Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde gerçekleştiği görülmüştür. Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde adcıl uyum yapılarında iç cümlenin öznesi yüksek oranda nominatif duruml yetkilendirilirken genitif durumla yetkilendirmenin de sıklığı az olmakla birlikte bulunduğu görülmüştür. MAXQDA nitel veri analizi programı ile yapılan sayısallaştırmalar sonucunda, 13. yüzyılda % 78; 14. yüzyılda % 85; Eski Anadolu Türkçesinin son dönemi olan 15. yüzyılda ise % 62 ile adcıl uyum gösteren yapılar nominatif durumla yetkilendirilmiştir. İncelenen örnekler sonucunda, Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde iç cümle öznesinin genitif-nominatif durumu Türkiye Türkçesinin aksine seçimlik olarak yüklendiği incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada Eski Anadou Türkçesinden derlenen örnekler ışığında iç cümlenin öznesinin genitif durumu hangi şartlarda aldığı incelenmiştir.

It is indicated by some researchers that in Western and Eastern group of Turkic Language there is genitive case assignment, but this process of assignment is made in different ways. Miyagawa (2008) mentions there are two different genitive case assignments in Altaic languages. One is C-licensing, the other is D-licensing. And Modern Turkish belongs to the C-licensing catetogry. In structures of Modern Turkish showing nominal coherence, the inner clause subject is assigned with genitive case. In other words, the inner clause subject is assigned with genitive case as a result that the inner clause predicate taking –DIk, -AcAk, and –mA morphemes takes a possessive suffix coherent with the subject. Miyagawa (2008) shows Modern Turkish within the category of Tüm-assigning languages. The process of assigning the inner clause subject with genitive case takes place in inner clause. Another issue related to the assignment of genitive case in Modern Turkish is that supposing the processes mentioned above take place within the inner clause, it is obligatory for the inner clause subject to be assigned with genitive case. In Old Anatolian Turkish, genitive case assignment occurs with morphemes –DIk, and –AcAk. The inner clause predicate nominalized with these two morphemes has a harmony with its subject by taking a possessive suffix coherent with the subject; and as a consequence of this harmony, the process of assigning the inner clause subject with genitive case takes place. That is to say, just like in Modern Turkish, genitive case assignment occurs with processes taking place within the inner sentence. Accordingly, Old Anatolian Turkish, which is a historical period of Modern Turkish, must be considered in Tüm-assigning languages. Because of the reasons mentioned above, the assignment of inner clause subject with genitive case in Old Anatolian Turkish shows similarity with Modern Turkish, but genitive case assignment, contrary to Modern Turkish, is seen as a result of studies to be used optionally. Whereas there is not nominative case assignment in structures showing nominal coherence in Modern Turkish, it is seen in Old Anatolian Turkish that structures showing nominal coherence are assigned also with nominative case. Moreover, nominative case assignment is proportionately more than genitive case assignment. In 13th century texts the subject is seen to be assigned with nominative and genitive cases in positions where there is nominal coherence. When a comparison is made between two cases, the frequency of nominative case (%78) is seen to be more than genitive case (%22). In texts from 14th century, it is seen that in inner clauses where there is nominal coherence the sentence is assigned with %85 nominative and % 15 genitive cases in proportion. This situation shows the appearance in 14th century has a dual structure. In proportion to the previous century, as the main reason of the increase in nominative case, we may put forward that –AcAK morpheme began to be used and it chose mainly the nominative case. When texts from 15th century, which is accepted to be the last period of Old Anatolian Turkish, are analyzed; it was observed that nominative case is % 62 and genitive case is % 38. Compared to 14th and 15th centuries, the rate of genitive case assignment in sentences with nominal coherence increased clearly. This shows the case suffix which the inner clause subject is assigned to became closer to genitive case. Miyagawa (2008) states about Turkish that the inner clause subject is only assigned with genitive case; but that situation is optional in Japanese, that is to say, both nominative and genitive case assignments are possible. The optional situation between genitive and nominative cases seen in Old Turkish is also observed in Old Anatolian Turkish even if nominative case assignment is more in proportion. As a result, predicates in Old Anatolian Turkish to which –DIk and–AcAk morphemes are added have nominal coherence wi