英语论文网

nagglutinative languages like Uyghur, the semantic and grammatical relations betweenelements can almost be marked by morphological and inflectional changes. Forexample:(3) a. M ri Jon-ni k r-di.Mary John-(acc) see-(pst)Mary saw John.b. Jon-ni M ri k r-di.John-(acc) Mary see-(pst)It was John whom Mary saw.From examples (3a) and (3b), we can see that the change of position betweenM ri and Jon does not affect the grammatical and semantic relations between the verband them as the word Jon takes accusative case (acc henceforth) marker –ni with itself.As is shown in example (3b) if we say “Jon–ni M ri k r–di.”, it still has the samemeaning with “Mary saw John.” with the only change of its topicality or focality.Therefore, with overt grammatical case markers, it is easy to identify the relationsbetween elements in Uyghur language regardless of their order in a sentence. In anutshell, case plays a more vital role in deciding relations of elements in Uyghurwhile in English word order also weighs more for deciding relations betweenelements.What s more, the differences in basic word order between English and Uyghurlanguage, at the same time, contribute fairly to the different order of some elements intwo languages according to Greenbergian word order correlations. With regard to therelations between basic word order and language elements, Greenberg (1963)established three most frequent basic word order patterns, namely SVO, SOV andVSO. More importantly he shows the correlations between VO/OV and otherelements. For instance, a VO language like English tends to have a relative clausefollowing the head noun while an OV language such as Japanese usually has the headnoun following the relative clause. As an OV language, Uyghur language also has arelative clause precede the head noun. For example:(4) a. The people whom you met in the campus yesterday are from England.b. s n tünügün m kt p–t  k r–g n ad m–l r  ngiliy -dink l-di.you yesterday campus–(loc) meet-(adjlz) person-(pl) England-(abl)come-(pst)In example (4a), English relative clause is followed by the head noun peoplewhile in its Uyghur equivalence example (4b) the relative clause precedes the headnoun ad ml r. Greenberg s study provides theoretical frame for the positionalsimilarities and differences of many languages and in this study it is one of thetheoretical frameworks, too. While Greenberg s typology aims at establishinguniversal patterns of word order, it does not intend to explain why the relative order ofthe verb and the object correlates with the order of phrasal categories, such as thenoun and its modifier.With the further development of cognitive linguistics,https://www.51lunwen.org/languagethesis/org201211062019038422.html there occurred sometheories such as figure and ground theory and heaviness hierarchy that explainreasons for the positional differences of the modifiers between different languages.This paper adopts these two theoretical frameworks to give reasonable explanationsfor the differences and similarities in using modifiers between English and Uyghurlanguage.

 

1.2 Aims and Significance of the Study
The aim of this study is to discover structural and positional commonalities anddifferences in using modifiers between English and Uyghur language and to offerreasonable arguments under the relevant theoretical frameworks of LanguageUniversals and Cognitive Linguistics. Therefore, this paper attempts to answer thefollowing questions:1. What are the structural and positional similarities本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。