Bütün bilimsel çalışmalarda, alanla ilgili konuların dökümünü hazırlamak ve tasnif etmek ilk ve öncelikli görev olmalıdır. Bu ilke, dilbilgisi çalışmaları için de geçerlidir. Genel olarak dil, özel olarak da ağız araştırmalarında tasnif, çok kolaylıkla yapılacak bir iş değildir elbette. Fakat zorluklar dikkate alınarak bu işten kaçınmak yerine, ölçütler belirlenmeli ve bu doğrultuda çalışmalar yapılmalıdır. Öte yandan birçok dilbilimcinin belirttiği üzere, diyalektoloji çalışmaları artık betimlemeden yorumlama aşamasına geçmiş ve diyalektolojik özellikler, toplumu oluşturan birimlerin doğru anlaşılması ve doğru tanımlanması için sosyolengüistik çalışmaların aracı hâline gelmiştir. Daha doğrusu bu amaçla kullanılması üzerinde ciddi ve yoğun çalışmalar vardır. Geçmiş yıllarda sunulan bildirileri ve yayımlanan makaleleri incelediğimizde, yalnızca birkaç çalışmada ağızların tasnifi ile ilgili görüşlere rastlanmaktadır. Ağız incelemeleri, büyük bir külliyatı oluşturabilecek seviyeye ulaşmış fakat teorik çalışmalar az sayıda kalmıştır. Bu durumun sebebi, ağız araştırmalarını zorlaştıran çeşitli etkenlerdir. Bütün bilimsel çalışmalarda terimler meselesi hiç ihmale gelmeyecek şekilde önemlidir. Çünkü terimlerin çağrışım alanı bulanık olursa, araştırmalardaki yanılma payı artar. Ağız araştırmalarında da durum böyledir. Ağızlarla ilgili olarak tespit edilen fonolojik özellikler, “genel” başlıklar halinde ölçütlere dönüştürülmektedir. Ancak her “özellik”, ayırt edici “ölçüt” değildir, olmayabilir. Genel çizgisine uymayan durumlara da “sebebi bilinmeyen” denilip geçilmektedir. Ağızlarda görülen özelliklerden hareketle tasnif yapılamaz. Bunların birer ölçüte dönüştürülmesi, en azından ölçüt olabilecek bir şekilde yeniden ifade edilmeleri gerekir. Ölçütler belirli sayıda ve ayırt edici olmalıdır.

In all scientific studies, take it to prepare documents and sort of issues should be the first and primary task. This principle also applies to grammar studies. In general language, specifically the classification of the dialect researches, of course, is not a job to be done very easily. But instead of considering this job to avoid difficulties, measures should be identified and action should be taken in this direction. Dialectology studies have become a tool of sociolinguistics. Rather serious and extensive studies on the use for this purpose. The papers presented in previous years, and we examine the articles published are only found in the opinion on the classification of the dialects in several studies. Dialect studies, have reached levels that could pose a major corpus of theoretical studies but remained few. The reasons for this situation are several factors that complicate their dialect research. In these studies, we do not see a common understanding and shared vision dialectologists. Statistics, which is made in 1991, supports our view that the criteria of dialectologists not fully match the criteria of other dialectologists’ quantity and content. This shows it is too early to talk about traditions in dialectological works. It is already clear that they were not so thoughtful about how to choose the criteria. When we look at the criteria for the classification of Turkic languages, then we see that they have such characteristics as small numbers, generality and selectivity. Unfortunately, unusual approaches hold in the Turkish dialectology: chosen some features of the dialect and they are sorted as criteria. On the other hand, it must be observed difference between the groups and subgroups of dialects. The reliability of the classification of dialects depends on the criteria that agree to the above difference. In the works of dialectology is another important issue is the fact that some features to oppose modern Turkic languages to the peculiarities of the Turkish dialects, it does not give results. So it cannot be the main pillar of such phonological equivalence as shown by the uniformity of the Turkic languages; because these languages were influenced by migration, high level of education, means of communication, cultural bundles, regional languages, etc. In other words, we should not disregard the fact that some features of Turkish dialects may occur under the influence of the local environment and others may arise sociological or psychological background and in the last they can be factors such as human flaws. I adhere to the view that dialectology will use synchronous methods, so there is no need to compare with the findings of studies on the old Turkish language, because it leads us to a dead end. On the other hand there is evidence of the fact that scientists have found large differences between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language from the old Turkish language. So if we cannot find an equivalence between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language with phonological characteristics of the old Turkish language which can be found in the manuscripts, it is not possible to use in the classification of dialects as criteria. In Turkish dialectology for a long time was the traditional approach, which is characteristic only of comparative historical research: to find similarities between the phonological features of dialects of the Turkish language with the characteristics of those tribes who moved into Anatolia in the 11th century. But while there are still unresolved problems, we cannot offer such equivalents as criteria. Phonological features identified in relation to the dialect, "general" heading are converted into the criteria. But every "feature" distinctive "criteria" is not, cannot. In the case does not meet the general line "of unknown cause" is called. Classification of the features cannot be seen in the dialect movement. Their conversion to a certain extent should be restated