Show/Hide Menu
Hide/Show Apps
Logout
Türkçe
Türkçe
Search
Search
Login
Login
OpenMETU
OpenMETU
About
About
Open Science Policy
Open Science Policy
Communities & Collections
Communities & Collections
Help
Help
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Guides
Guides
Thesis submission
Thesis submission
MS without thesis term project submission
MS without thesis term project submission
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission
Publication submission
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
General Information
General Information
Copyright, Embargo and License
Copyright, Embargo and License
Contact us
Contact us
Conjoined wh-questions
Date
2017-11-01
Author
Gracanın Yüksek, Martına
Metadata
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
.
Item Usage Stats
57
views
0
downloads
Cite This
Many languages, in addition to ordinary multiple wh-questions, have a construction in which two or more wh-phrases appear to be coordinated at the left periphery of the clause. This construction is referred to as a conjoined wh-question (CWH). The two kinds of multiple questions differ not only in form, but also in interpretation: while ordinary multiple wh-questions favor pair-list readings, CWHs favor single-pair readings. Somewhat surprisingly, CWHs are found not only in multiple wh-fronting languages (MF languages), but also in languages that front only one or none of the wh-phrases (non-MF languages). While all languages with CWHs allow the coordinated wh-phrases to be adjuncts (When and where did John go to school?), only MF languages allow coordination of two wh-arguments (*Who and what saw?). The structure of CWHs seems to vary both across languages and within a single language. This chapter surveys cross-linguistic typology of CWHs as well as existing accounts of this construction. One type of an analysis of CWHs, the monoclausal account, claims that the wh-phrases originate in a single clause and are fronted to the left periphery, where they are coordinated. On the other type of account, the biclausal account, CWHs involve a coordination of interrogative clauses. It will be shown that both types of analysis seem to be needed in order to cover the cross-linguistic diversity of CWHs.
URI
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom015
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/92838
Relation
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition
Collections
Department of Foreign Language Education, Book / Book chapter
Suggestions
OpenMETU
Core
The Interaction of Contextual and Syntactic Information in the Processing of Turkish Anaphors
Gracanın Yüksek, Martına; Safak, Duygu Fatma; Demir, Orhan; Kırkıcı, Bilal (2017-12-01)
In contrast with languages where anaphors can be classified into pronouns and reflexives, Turkish has a tripartite system that consists of the anaphors o, kendi, and kendisi. The syntactic literature on these anaphors has proposed that whereas o behaves like a pronoun and kendi behaves like a reflexive, kendisi has a more flexible behavior and it can function as both a pronoun and a reflexive. Using acceptability judgments and a self-paced reading task, we examined how Turkish anaphors are processed in isol...
Same Language Different Dialects: Expression of the Modern Movement in Ankara and Kaunas
Armağan Doğan, Huriye (Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, 2020-12-31)
The Modern Movement in architecture was not expressed or understood in the same way all around the World, which created different dialects in the language it uses in architecture. Even though all the different variations had one common aim, which was establishing an architecture that is functional and away from eclecticism, there were still diverse approaches. In the early 20th century, modern architecture was introduced as a part of a schema of social and cultural renewal, therefore, it can be expected tha...
Intonation in the grammar of Turkish
Özge, Umut; Bozşahin, Hüseyin Cem (2010-01-01)
We claim that the observed word order variations, information structure and the phrasal intonational structure correlate with each other in Turkish, rather than determine one way or the other. Therefore the relation must be mediated. Turkish prosody imposes precedence constraints on certain intonational contours that are responsible for the realization of information structural units, and the lexical syntactic types are reflections of these constraints on grammar, which must include directionality, syntacti...
The Role Of Morphology in The Processing Of English-Turkish False Cognates: Evidence From A Backward Lexical Translation Task
Kırkıcı, Bilal; Ataman, Esra (2017-06-24)
False cognates are lexical items that display overlapping orthographic and/or phonological properties in two languages but little or no semantic similarity. Studies investigating the processing of false cognates have predominantly disregarded the effect of morphology (cf. Janke & Kolokonte, 2015). Additionally, studies on the processing of (false) cognates have almost exclusively dwelt on typologically-related language pairs like English-Italian and English-German, disregarding the processing of (false) cog...
Joint learning of morphological segmentation, morpheme tagging, part-of-speech tagging, and dependency parsing
Aleçakır, Hüseyin.; Bozşahin, Hüseyin Cem; Department of Cognitive Sciences (2020)
In agglutinating languages, there is a strong relationship between morphology and syntax. Inflectional and derivational suffixes have a significant role while determining the syntactic role of the word in the sentence. This connection enables the joint learning of morphology and syntax. Apart from that, the complex morphology poses a sparsity problem. In this respect, morphological analysis and segmentation are vital for various natural language processing applications. All of these have provided the primar...
Citation Formats
IEEE
ACM
APA
CHICAGO
MLA
BibTeX
M. Gracanın Yüksek,
Conjoined wh-questions
. 2017.