Language is a framework that human can participate and share their ideas together. Using different languages created wide ranges of cultures and traditions. In this paper relations between two languages (English and Kurdish) will be explained in term of typology. Linguistic typology is ‘the classification of languages according to their general structure rather than according to their historical or geographical relationship’. It aims at putting forward hypotheses concerning universal characteristics of underlying syntactic categories and structures for both languages, and interrelations between them in one dimension; and identifying their differences morphologically would be another pole. The main objective of the paper serves second language learners of any of two languages do not use their mother tongue structure in speaking target languages; however, understanding the main syntax and morphology of the target language will be more helpful and useful to cope with the learned language easier and faster. The paper brings different pieces of evidence concerning Morphology and Syntax for both languages and each will be illustrated in detail. Later, logical answers will be given to research questions. In the morphological section, different parameters, free and boundary morphemes, and inflectional and derivational morphemes of both languages will be explained by comparing and contrasting each other in both languages. Additionally, in regard to Syntactic variations, word order asymmetries will be identified. Moreover, inside the sections, parameters of both languages` word formations will be analyzed, the effect of intonation on sentence meaning will be explained, helpful tips will be given to learning language however their word orders are different, and finally, the universality of both languages will be proved. Then, a conclusion will sum up the paper in a nutshell.
| Published in | English Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 2, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14 |
| Page(s) | 115-123 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Kurdish Language, Asymmetry, Language Typology
| [1] | Baayen, H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109-149. |
| [2] | Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Benjamins: Amsterdam. |
| [3] | Bybee, J. (1997). Semantic aspects of morphological typology. John Benjamins: Philadelphia, USA. |
| [4] | Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (eds.) (2004). Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Benjamins: Amsterdam. |
| [5] | Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Blackwell: Oxford. |
| [6] | Comrie, B. (2009). Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Peking university press: China. |
| [7] | Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press: UK. |
| [8] | Croft, W. (1995). “Modern Syntactic Typology”, in Shibatani, Masayoshi, Theodora Bynon (eds.) (1995), Approaches to Language Typology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85-145. |
| [9] | Croft, W. (2002). Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press: UK. |
| [10] | Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press: UK. |
| [11] | Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge University Press: UK. |
| [12] | Dixon, R. M. W. (2012). Basic Linguistic Theory 1. Oxford University Press: New York. |
| [13] | Dixon, R. M. W. (2012). Basic Linguistic Theory 2. Oxford University Press: New York. |
| [14] | Dixon, R. M. W. (2012). Basic Linguistic Theory 3. Oxford University Press: New York. |
| [15] | Fortescue, M. (1984). West Greenlandic. Croom Helm: London. |
| [16] | Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA. |
| [17] | Greenberg, J. H. (1963). "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements", In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language. London: MIT Press, pp. 73-75. |
| [18] | Greenberg, J. H. (1966). “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements”, in Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) (1966), Universals of Language (2nd edition), Cambridge: MIT, pp. 73-113. |
| [19] | Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular References to the Order of Meaningful Elements, in J. H. Greenberg (ed.) (1963). |
| [20] | Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Universals of Language. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massa chutes, USA. |
| [21] | Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwell: OUP, UK. |
| [22] | Haiman, J. (1980). The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation, Language, vol. 58, pp. 515-540. |
| [23] | Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and Economic Motivation, Language, vol. 59 (4), pp. 781-819. |
| [24] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold: China. |
| [25] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On Language and Linguistics. Continuum: New York, USA. |
| [26] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: New York, USA. |
| [27] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). Computational and Quantitative Studies. Continuum: New York, USA. |
| [28] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2006). Studies in the Chinese language. Continuum: New York, USA. |
| [29] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and Education. Continuum: New York, USA. |
| [30] | Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday`s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge: USA. |
| [31] | Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press: UK. |
| [32] | Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J. (2009). Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Continuum: London. |
| [33] | Haspelmath, M. (2007). Pre-established Categories Don’t Exist Consequences for Language Description and Typology, Linguistic Typology, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 119-132. |
| [34] | Hawkins, J. (1983). Word Order Universals. Quantitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure, New York: Academic Press. Stassen, Leon (1985), Comparison and Universal Grammar. Blackwell: Oxford. |
| [35] | Jung, S. (2001). Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Pearson: UK. |
| [36] | Lehmann, W. (1973). A Structural Principle and its Implications, Language, Vol. 49 (1), pp. 42-66. |
| [37] | Lehmann, W. (1978). “The Great Underlying Ground-plans”, in Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.) (1978), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, University of Texas Press: Austin, pp. 3-55. |
| [38] | Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press: Berkeley. |
| [39] | Lyovin, A. V. (1997). An introduction to the languages of the world. Oxford University Press: Oxford. |
| [40] | Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. John Benjamins: Philadelphia and Amsterdam. |
| [41] | Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave: New York, USA. |
| [42] | Moravcsik, E. (2007). What is Universal about Typology?, Linguistic Typology, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 27-41. |
| [43] | Moravcsik, E. (2013). Introducing Language Typology. Cambridge University Press: UK. |
| [44] | Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. |
| [45] | Plank, F. (2007). Preface, Linguistic Typology, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 1-3. |
| [46] | Poppe, N. (1960). Buriat Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University. |
| [47] | Ruqaiya, H. (2000). Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics. Harville Press: London. |
| [48] | Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon &Schuster. |
| [49] | Rutherford, W. E. (1984). Description and Explanation of Inter-language Syntax: State of the Art, LL, Vol. (34), pp. 127-155. |
| [50] | Sapir, E. (1921). Language. Harcourt Brace and World: New York. |
| [51] | Shopen, T. (1987). Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. |
| [52] | Shopen, T. (2007). Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. |
| [53] | Slobin, D. (2004). Issues of Linguistic Typology in the Study of Sign Language Development of Deaf Children. B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Siple (Eds.), Sign Language Development of Deaf Children: Where Have We Been, and Where Are We Going? Oxford University Press: Oxford. |
| [54] | Song, J. (2001). Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Pearson: Harlow. |
| [55] | Song, J. J. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. |
| [56] | Vennemann, T. (1973). “Explanation in Syntax”, in Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, New York: Seminar, pp. 1-50. |
| [57] | Vennemann, T. (1976). “Categorial Grammar and the Order of Meaningful Elements”, in Juilland, Alphonse (ed.) (1976), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, pp. 615-634. |
| [58] | Wang, Y. and Zhou, Y. (2014). A Functional Study of Event-Existentials in Modern Chinese, Functional Linguistics, vol. 1 (7), pp. 1-17. |
| [59] | Whaley, L. (2008). Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Sage Publication: California, USA. |
APA Style
Areen Ahmed Muhammed. (2018). Identifying and Explaining Some Structural Asymmetries in Kurdish vs. the English Language: Morphological and Syntactic Typology Study. English Language, Literature & Culture, 2(6), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14
ACS Style
Areen Ahmed Muhammed. Identifying and Explaining Some Structural Asymmetries in Kurdish vs. the English Language: Morphological and Syntactic Typology Study. Engl. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2018, 2(6), 115-123. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14
AMA Style
Areen Ahmed Muhammed. Identifying and Explaining Some Structural Asymmetries in Kurdish vs. the English Language: Morphological and Syntactic Typology Study. Engl Lang Lit Cult. 2018;2(6):115-123. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14,
author = {Areen Ahmed Muhammed},
title = {Identifying and Explaining Some Structural Asymmetries in Kurdish vs. the English Language: Morphological and Syntactic Typology Study},
journal = {English Language, Literature & Culture},
volume = {2},
number = {6},
pages = {115-123},
doi = {10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ellc.20170206.14},
abstract = {Language is a framework that human can participate and share their ideas together. Using different languages created wide ranges of cultures and traditions. In this paper relations between two languages (English and Kurdish) will be explained in term of typology. Linguistic typology is ‘the classification of languages according to their general structure rather than according to their historical or geographical relationship’. It aims at putting forward hypotheses concerning universal characteristics of underlying syntactic categories and structures for both languages, and interrelations between them in one dimension; and identifying their differences morphologically would be another pole. The main objective of the paper serves second language learners of any of two languages do not use their mother tongue structure in speaking target languages; however, understanding the main syntax and morphology of the target language will be more helpful and useful to cope with the learned language easier and faster. The paper brings different pieces of evidence concerning Morphology and Syntax for both languages and each will be illustrated in detail. Later, logical answers will be given to research questions. In the morphological section, different parameters, free and boundary morphemes, and inflectional and derivational morphemes of both languages will be explained by comparing and contrasting each other in both languages. Additionally, in regard to Syntactic variations, word order asymmetries will be identified. Moreover, inside the sections, parameters of both languages` word formations will be analyzed, the effect of intonation on sentence meaning will be explained, helpful tips will be given to learning language however their word orders are different, and finally, the universality of both languages will be proved. Then, a conclusion will sum up the paper in a nutshell.},
year = {2018}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Identifying and Explaining Some Structural Asymmetries in Kurdish vs. the English Language: Morphological and Syntactic Typology Study AU - Areen Ahmed Muhammed Y1 - 2018/01/02 PY - 2018 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14 T2 - English Language, Literature & Culture JF - English Language, Literature & Culture JO - English Language, Literature & Culture SP - 115 EP - 123 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-2413 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170206.14 AB - Language is a framework that human can participate and share their ideas together. Using different languages created wide ranges of cultures and traditions. In this paper relations between two languages (English and Kurdish) will be explained in term of typology. Linguistic typology is ‘the classification of languages according to their general structure rather than according to their historical or geographical relationship’. It aims at putting forward hypotheses concerning universal characteristics of underlying syntactic categories and structures for both languages, and interrelations between them in one dimension; and identifying their differences morphologically would be another pole. The main objective of the paper serves second language learners of any of two languages do not use their mother tongue structure in speaking target languages; however, understanding the main syntax and morphology of the target language will be more helpful and useful to cope with the learned language easier and faster. The paper brings different pieces of evidence concerning Morphology and Syntax for both languages and each will be illustrated in detail. Later, logical answers will be given to research questions. In the morphological section, different parameters, free and boundary morphemes, and inflectional and derivational morphemes of both languages will be explained by comparing and contrasting each other in both languages. Additionally, in regard to Syntactic variations, word order asymmetries will be identified. Moreover, inside the sections, parameters of both languages` word formations will be analyzed, the effect of intonation on sentence meaning will be explained, helpful tips will be given to learning language however their word orders are different, and finally, the universality of both languages will be proved. Then, a conclusion will sum up the paper in a nutshell. VL - 2 IS - 6 ER -
Email: