BASHKIR POETIC CORPUS AS A DH-RESOURCE
The paper describes two types of marking of landmark in Bashkir. Bashkir has two ways of expressing location: a landmark with the locative case marker and a landmark with a spatial postposition. The choice among two possibilities depends on some semantic features. The main goal of the paper is to analyze the choice between thеse constructions. The data were collected using a special questionnaire which was developed for the research of spatial relations of the world’s languages [Bowerman, Pederson 1992] and using additional elicitation. As a result, a competition area of these two ways of landmark expression was found. The choice of the type of landmark marking within this area depends on the properties of situation which are described in the article.
In this paper I describe the grammatical markers and relevant lexical elements used in different types of interrogative sentences in Bashkir, and their distribution. I discuss polar and alternative questions in Bashkir, which both involve a special interrogative particle =mE, and their intonation patterns, and review the non-interrogative uses of the particle =mE. I discuss content questions (“wh questions”), including the inventory of interrogative words, their position, and the intonation patterns used in such questions. I review the attested peripheral markers used in interrogative sentences, i. e. tag-like and particle-like markers, which are mostly used in biased questions. Finally, I discuss the expression of some special types of questions, including non-standard illocutionary types (“deliberative”, permissive, and hortative), echo questions, and embedded questions.
This study introduces a complex networks-based approach to quantifying agglutination. This approach is one of the most powerful ways of model description but it has been rarely used for linguistic needs and there are very few papers where it is applied to morphology.
The Bashkir language belongs to the Turkic languages which are considered to be agglutinative. Although the notion of agglutination was introduced in the 19th century, there is no generally accepted definition of an agglutinative language. Different features were supposed to be necessarily present in an agglutinative language, however, there seems to be no correlation between them. In this study we discuss the data provided by our network and relevant for the notion of agglutination and transcategoriality.
We conducted our study on Bashkir newspaper texts containing 5.8 mln tokens overall. They were annotated with the program “Bashmorph”. We built a network where nodes are affixes while edges represent cooccurrence of an affix pair. The network was built as weighted (based on the frequency of cooccurrences) and undirected. The network consists of 294 nodes and 3446 edges.
It turns out that several standard coefficients characterizing such a network help to quantify and describe certain characteristics of a language. In our case, most parameters correspond to agglutination. Namely, we discuss the meaning of assortativity coefficient, cliques number, maximal k-core, cluster coefficient and network density as well as some other data.
An article describes one of the earliest prose texts (never published or even known about) of Vsevolod Nekrasov, Russian concretist and conceptualist: it adds some significant information on "second avant-garde" notions of "classical literature".
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.