INVESTIGATING SEVERAL SIMILAR QUESTIONS TYPES IN TURKISH, KURDISH, ENGLISH, RUSSIAN AND GERMAN

Language is used as a tool of communication in all over the world, and each society or country may adopt a different language leading various dialects or language usages. In order to interrogate different aspects, multiple question types are utilized in a language. Also, questions are globally used to get information about a topic / issue, ask for confirmation, request something or clarify some controversial aspects almost in all languages. In addition, some questions are directed to speakers via question words such as what, where or how; on the other hand, some questions are conducted via helping verbs, adjuncts or question tags. Foreign language learners first learn affirmative, then negative and finally questions forms in the target language that is why it may be inferred that using questions in a language requires improvement and experience. The current study aims to find out some similar questions types in Turkish, English,Kurdish, Russian and German; hence, an analysis has been conducted on question samples obtained descriptively in those languages. The results of the analysis indicated that there are some similar types of questions such as general questions, special questions, tag questions and alternative questions in both languages. Key Words: Types, question, Kurdish, English, Turkish, Russian, German

‘Wh’-question intonation in Standard Colloquial Bengali

Mycock, Xu, and Lahiri provide LFG analyses of multiple multi-clause constituent ‘wh’- question intonation patterns in Standard Colloquial Bengali (the Bengali dialect spoken in Kolkata), capturing the intonational tune–text mapping which crucially interacts with syntax, pragmatics, and semantics. Based on a new set of data, they identify the intonational contours used with ‘wh’-questions that include multiple question words and/or that comprise multiple clauses. These data reveal that a Focus accent can be ‘shared’ across a sequence of question words and that a subordinate clause forms a separate intonational unit (an Intonational Phrase) when it contains question words that take scope over a higher clause but not when they only take scope over the clause in which they appear.

Modular Design of Grammar

Modular design of grammar: Linguistics on the edge presents the cutting edge of research on linguistic modules and interfaces in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). LFG has a highly modular design that models the linguistic system as a set of discreet submodules that include, among others, constituent structure, functional structure, argument structure, semantic structure, and prosodic structure, with each module having its coherent properties and being related to each other by correspondence functions. Following a detailed introduction, Part I scrutinises the nature of linguistic structures, interfaces and representations in LFG’s architecture and ontology. Parts II and III are concerned with problems, analyses and generalisations associated with linguistic phenomena which are of long-standing theoretical significance, including agreement, reciprocals, possessives, reflexives, raising, subjecthood, and relativisation, demonstrating how these phenomena can be naturally accounted for within LFG’s modular architecture. Part IV explores issues of the synchronic and diachronic dynamics of syntactic categories in grammar, such as unlike category coordination, fuzzy categorial edges, and consequences of decategorialization, providing explicit LFG solutions to such problems including those which result from language change in progress. The final part re-examines and refines the precise representations and interfaces of syntax with morphology, semantics and pragmatics to account for challenging facts such as suspended affixation, prosody in multiple question word interrogatives and information structure, anaphoric dependencies, and idioms.

Morphological marking of constituent questions: A case for nonlocal amalgamation

This paper considers the role of nonlocal amalgamation in a system of analyses for typologically diverse languages. Nonlocal amalgamation (Bouma et al. 2001) was suggested in particular to get rid of extraction rules in Pollard and Sag's (1994) analysis of long-distance dependencies. However, in implemented projects like the English Resource Grammar (Flickinger, 2000, 2011) and the Grammar Matrix (Bender et al., 2002, 2010), the extraction rules have been maintained, while nonlocal amalgamation is used for the analysis of phenomena like the easy-adjectives. Zamaraeva and Emerson (2020) argue that, if extraction rules are kept, then supporting the English easy-adjectives may be an insufficient reason to maintain nonlocal amalgamation in a cross-linguistic system like the Grammar Matrix, as it complicates the analysis of multiple question word fronting with flexible word order (in languages such as Russian [rus]). However, I present here a case of morphological marking of questions (in languages like Makah [myh]) which further motivates nonlocal amalgamation, as the analysis is remarkably more simple with it than it is without it. An analysis of morphological marking of questions needs to be part of a cross-linguistic system such as the Grammar Matrix as well as an analysis of multiple fronting, which adds a new tension at the level of the Matrix "core" and provides concrete material for discussion of issues ranging from empirical implementation of theoretical ideas like nonlocal amalgamation to the big question of how much of typological space a single system of grammar is expected to cover.

Multiple question fronting without relational constraints: An analysis of Russian as a basis for cross-linguistic modeling

We present an analysis of multiple question fronting in a restricted variant of the HPSG formalism (DELPH-IN) where unification is the only natively defined operation. Analysing multiple fronting in this formalism is challenging, because it requires carefully handling list appends, something that HPSG analyses of question fronting heavily rely on. Our analysis uses the append list type to address this challenge. We focus the testing of our analysis on Russian, although we also integrate it into the Grammar Matrix customization system where it serves as a basis for cross-linguistic modeling. In this context, we discuss the relationship of our analysis to lexical threading and conclude that, while lexical threading has its advantages, modeling multiple extraction cross-linguistically is easier without the lexical threading assumption.