Received 22.01.2026, Revised 25.05.2026, Accepted 27.06.2026

Function words in Kyrgyz and German: Classification and contrastive analysis

Aiana Murzabaeva*, Cholpon Talkanova, Valeriia Kuznetsova, Amangeldy Bekbalaev

amurzabaeva@bhu.kg



The systematisation of function word classes remains a pressing issue in contrastive linguistics, as typologically divergent languages employ fundamentally different mechanisms for encoding grammatical relations. This study aimed to establish the types and hierarchy of cross-linguistic functional correspondences between four Kyrgyz function word classes – postpositions, auxiliary nouns, conjunctions, and particles and their structural equivalents in German, with a view to identifying the compensatory grammatical mechanisms each language employs when the resources of the other are structurally absent. The research drew on contrastive analysis, the parallel-text method, descriptive-analytical procedures, and componential analysis; the empirical basis consisted of grammatical descriptions of the two languages and parallel literary texts. The analysis established that German prepositions constitute the primary functional correspondence for Kyrgyz postpositions, yet this mapping is not one-to-one: a single postposition may be rendered by different prepositions depending on context, while certain grammatical meanings are expressed through adverbial or analytic constructions. It was further found that Kyrgyz auxiliary nouns, which display a three-part morphological structure (root plus possessive affix plus case affix), have no single part-of-speech equivalent in German; their spatial semantics are conveyed primarily by prepositions, and additionally by adverbs and complex prepositional phrases. The coordinating conjunction systems of the two languages showed a considerable degree of isomorphism, whereas the subordinating domain reveals a notable quantitative asymmetry: German commands a substantially richer inventory, and Kyrgyz compensates through non-finite verb forms and the conditional mood. Particles in both languages exhibited the least predictable cross-linguistic correspondences, a result attributable to their pragmatic and discourse-level nature. The findings will be of interest to researchers in contrastive linguistics and translation studies, as well as to teachers of Kyrgyz and German

typological divergence; SOV word order; non-finite subordination; grammaticalisation; morphosyntactic asymmetry; parallel corpus analysis; cross-linguistic equivalence
21-33
Murzabaeva, A., Talkanova, Ch., Kuznetsova, V., & Bekbalaev, A. (2026). Function words in Kyrgyz and German: Classification and contrastive analysis. Bulletin of the Bishkek State University, 24(2), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.35254/ss/2.2026.21

References

  1. Abdykaimova, O.S., Abramova, L.A., & Abdullaeva, S.M. (2020). Theoretical grammar of German: Instructional manual. Bishkek: Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University.
  2. Abdykakharov, A.T. (2007). English prepositions, Kyrgyz postpositions, and auxiliary nouns from the perspective of linguistic nomination. (Doctoral dissertation, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  3. Abramov, B.A. (2004). Theoretical grammar of German. Moscow: Vlados.
  4. Admoni, V.G. (1970). The structure of German. München: C.H. Beck.
  5. Aitmatov, T. (2016). Dshamilja. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag.
  6. Bergman, N.A., & Gilkner, A.Y. (1957). Grammar of the German language: Textbook for grade 8 (8th ed.). Moscow: Educational and Pedagogical Publishing House.
  7. Biyaliev, K.A. (2013). A brief grammar reference of the Kyrgyz language. Bishkek: Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University.
  8. Bizhkenova, A. (2017). Structural-semantic and pragmatic features of deonym adjectives in Russian, Kazakh and German languages. XLinguae, 10(4), 3-12. doi: 10.18355/XL.2017.10.04.01.
  9. Boye, K. (2023). Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discursively secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical-grammatical continuum. Transactions of the Philological Society, 121(2), 270-292. doi: 10.1111/1467-968X.12265.
  10. Cermakova, A., Hasselgård, H., Malá, M., & Šebestová, D. (Eds.). (2024). Contrastive corpus linguistics: Patterns in lexicogrammar and discourse. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  11. Davletov, S., & Kudaybergenov, S. (1980). Modern Kyrgyz: Morphology. Bishkek: Mektep.
  12. De Knop, S., & Gallez, F. (2023). A contrastive study of Germanic satellite-framed languages: The role of prepositions, postpositions and morphosyntactic case-marking. In International cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 1-27). Düsseldorf: Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.
  13. Diykanov, K. (1955). The noun in the Kyrgyz language. Bishkek: Publishing House of the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences.
  14. Dryer, M., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). (2013). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13950591.
  15. Dzholdobekov, A. (1969). German prepositions and their functional analogues in Kyrgyz language. (Doctoral dissertation, Kyrgyz State University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  16. Glinz, H. (1961). The inner form of German: A new German grammar (4th ed.). Bern: Francke.
  17. Haspelmath, M. (2023). Word-class universals and language-particular analysis. In E. van Lier (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of word classes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198852889.013.2.
  18. Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781139016704.
  19. Jung, W. (1996). Grammar of the German language. Saint Petersburg: Lan.
  20. Kozuev, D.I., Beksultanova, G.A., & Jumalieva, G.E. (2021). Structural-semantic features of English and Kyrgyz complex sentences with adverbial clauses. In Social and cultural transformations in the context of modern globalism (pp. 871-878). London: European Publisher. doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.117.
  21. Moskalskaja, O.I. (2004). Grammar of contemporary German language. Moscow: Academia.
  22. Pazilova, T.Zh. (2025). Auxiliary verbs in the formation of compound verbs in the Kyrgyz language. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 11(6), 704-709. doi: 10.33619/2414-2948/115/88.
  23. Ryskulova, Ch.Sh. (2008). A comparative study of Kyrgyz postpositions and their functional equivalents in English. (Doctoral dissertation, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  24. Sagynbaev, K. (1989). French spatial prepositions and their Kyrgyz analogues. (Doctoral dissertation, Kyrgyz State University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  25. Sarymsakova, A.Zh. (2007). Synsemantic lexical units of German and Kyrgyz languages. (Doctoral dissertation, Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  26. Sydykov, Zh.K. (1990). The phonetic structure of modern Kyrgyz literary language and dialects. (Doctoral dissertation, Kyrgyz State University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  27. Umarov, K. (1973). German subordinating conjunctions and their functional equivalents in Kyrgyz language. (Doctoral dissertation, Kyrgyz State University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
  28. Washington, J., Çöltekin, Ç., Akkurt, F., Chontaeva, B., Eslami, S., Jumalieva, G., Kasieva, A., Kuzgun, A., Marşan, B., & Taguchi, C. (2024). Strategies for the annotation of pronominalised locatives in Turkic universal dependency treebanks. In A. Bhatia, G. Bouma, A.S. Doğruöz, K. Evang, M. Garcia, V. Giouli, L. Han, J. Nivre & A. Rademaker (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint workshop on multiword expressions and universal dependencies (pp. 207-219). Torino: ELRA and ICCL.
  29. Zakharova, O.V. (1987). Grammar of the Kyrgyz literary language. Part 1: Phonetics and morphology. Bishkek: Ilim.
  30. Zhunussova, B., Baimurynov, Z., Kenzhegaliyev, S., Sametova, Z., Kenzhebekova, A., & Balabekova, M. (2024). The nature and function of the ancient Turkic functional word “birlan” in modern Turkic languages (using the example of the Kazakh language). Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(6), 162-171. doi: 10.30564/fls.v6i6.6943.