---

A field study was conducted to evaluate the agronomic response of eight isolines of cv. Clark on a clay loam soil (at Karaj-Iran, 35048´) to four plant population densities of 11.3, 18.5, 68.5, and 103.4 plants per square metre. Significant yield increase was obtained as a result of higher plant density. Differences among the cv. Clark isolines were significant (p<0.05). Yield components such as numbers of branches, pods, and seeds per plant decreased linearly as population density increased. Adjustments in pods and seeds per plant resulted from altered branches per plant. The isolines which exhibit profuse branching (e.g. E1E2E3, E1e2E3, E1E2 e3) were capable of optimising yield when planted at low densities. The second dynamic factor that aided yield compensation by plant population density was greater total dry matter partitioning, which resulted in a significantly greater harvest index at the lower compared with the higher plant density. The results indicated that total biomass and crop growth rate were the major elements explaining the reduced yield compensation factors at higher plant population density. Plotting the fitted seed yield values against the number of dominant alleles showed the effect of the maturity genes on the response of seed yield to plant density.

---

In this article, word order in syntactic structures of the mixed Turkish-Persian language of Baft was studied through the 24 correlation pairs of Dryer (1992, 2009 & 2013) to determine the typology of this language compared to Europe-Asia and world genera. Other purposes of this research were to study the efficiency of Head-Dependent Theory, Branching Direction Theory and Cross-Category Harmony Principle to investigate whether they can explain the typological behavior of this language. The findings showed that this mixed Turkish-Persian language compared to Europe-Asia languages had 16 elements of strong object-verb languages (verb follows object) and 15 elements of verb-object languages (verb precedes object). This language in comparison with world languages also had 15 elements of strong OV languages and 14 elements of strong VO languages. These results prove that this language variety compared to Europe-Asia and world languages corresponds with OV genera. Having the elements of strong VO languages compared to Europe-Asia and world languages indicates that this variety is moving toward the strong VO languages and typologically is not a consistent OV or VO language, but a mixed one and this property is for a broad bilingual social environment. Moreover, the evidence of this language showed that Head-Dependent Theory, Branching Direction Theory and Cross-Category Harmony Principle cannot explain the typological word order behavior of this mixed Turkish-Persian language.

1. Introduction
Typology is a branch of linguistics using parameters like word order to discover the shared characteristics of languages and to represent the functional explanations. The purpose of this article is to study the word order in syntactic structures (phrases and clauses) of the mixed Turkish-Persian language of Baft through the 24 correlation pairs of Dryer (1992, 2009 & 2013) to determine the typology of this language compared to Europe-Asia and world genera. This research was to study the efficiency of Head-Dependent Theory, Branching Direction Theory, and Cross-Category Harmony Principle to investigate whether they can explain the typological behavior of this language as well. Moreover, the typological word order of this Turkish- Persian language in comparison with monolingual languages like Turkish and Persian will be clarified. For this purpose, we compared the data of 24 correlation pairs of this language with the corresponding elements in Europe-Asia and world genera. The framework for this study was Dryer (1992), the most comprehensive experimental study regarding word order, correlations, and the number of languages. This database includes 625 languages identified based on genera.

2. Literature Review
Greenberg (1963) was the first figure studying word order typology. He presented 45 universals through investigating 30 languages. Then Lehman (1978a) based on the findings of Greenberg (1963) introduced the fundamental principle of placement and reduced his three typological components into two elements including verb and object. Vennemann (1974) indicated the unimportance function of subject in word order typology as well but he used all word order universals of Greenberg (1963) based on categorical analogy. He showed that heads and dependents are placed in the same direction. That is, the dependent was placed before the head or the head was placed before the dependent. He maintained that the dependent was before head in OV languages and head was before dependent in VO languages. Hawkins (1983, p. 116) rejected the word order typology of Greenberg with the help of 236 languages. He based adposition to study word order typology and referred to the importance of frequency and quantity of word order correlations (Song, 2018 p. 237). Dryer (1992) indicated genera and statistical universals compared to the individual languages against Hawkins (1983) who studies for finding universals. Dabir-Moghaddam (2014) studied the word order typology of Farsi, Balochi, Davani, Larestani, Taleshi, Vafsi, Kurdish, Aramaic Laki, Delvari, Nayini, Shahmirzadi and Tati languages based on the correlation components of Dryer (1992). He concluded that the 24 correlational elements of the mentioned languages have been influenced by Persian as the superstratum language having a strong middle verb. The findings of Rezapoor (2015) in Semnani and Rezapoor, E. & Abdollahi (2019) in Sangesari languages compared to Europe-Asia and world languages are strong verb final languages.

3. Methodology
The data of this descriptive-analytic research was collected by the researcher as a native speaker and other native speakers by comparing these structures with 24 correlation pairs. After analyzing the clauses and phrases into morphemes, they were transcribed and compared to two columns related to corresponding elements in both Europe- Asia where this variety itself was located, and world genera where all other languages in the world were placed. The correlation pairs are adposition (preposition and postposition) and a noun phrase, noun and relative clause, noun and genitive, adjective and standard in comparative construction, verb and adpositional phrase, verb and manner adverb, copula verb, and predicate, want and verb phrase, adjective and noun, demonstrative and noun, adjective and intensifier, tense/aspect particle and verb, question particle and clause, adverbial subordinator/ subordinate conjunction and clause, article and noun, verb and subject, number and noun, tense-aspect affix and verb stem, noun and possessive affix, the sequence of an auxiliary and content verb, complementizer and sentence, question particle and sentence, verb and object and negative particle and verb.

4. Results
The result of data showed that this mixed Turkish-Persian language compared to Europe-Asia languages had 16 elements of strong object-verb languages (verb follows object) and 15 elements of verb-object languages (verb precedes object). This language in comparison with world languages also had 15 elements of strong OV languages and 14 elements of strong VO languages. These results prove that this language variety compared to Europe-Asia and world languages correspond with OV genera. Having the elements of strong VO languages compared to Europe-Asia and world languages indicates that this variety is moving toward the strong VO languages and typologically is not a consistent OV or VO language, but a mixed one and this property is for a broad bilingual social environment.
According to the Head- Dependent Theory, languages tend towards one of two ideals: head-initial languages, in which heads consistently precede their dependents, and head-final languages, in which heads consistently follow their dependents. One of the goals of this paper is to investigate this theory based on Turkish- Persian language. The findings showed that this Turkish-Persian variety is a strong OV language. Based on Head-Dependent Theory, it is predicted that heads occur after dependents, but contrary to the prediction of this theory that verb patterners are heads and object patterners are dependents, the relative clause is head and noun is dependent. This finding proves that what HDT predicts is not correct. Moreover, the correlation data of this variety does not prove and explain what Cross-Category Harmony Principle predicts. Based on CCHP, head-initial languages have consistently initial head and head-final languages consistently possess final head, but the correlation pairs of adjective and standard in comparative construction, the order of article and noun, and the order of verb and object in this head-final language showed that the standard in comparative construction, noun, and verb in these pairs are not heads and the structure type determines the head. This finding is consistent with Dryer (1992: 89) that claims that HDT and CCHP in identifying head and dependents are inefficient.
Based on the Branching Direction Theory (BDT) of Dryer (1992: 90), languages tend towards one of two ideals: right-branching languages, in which phrasal categories follow nonphrasal categories and left-branching, languages in which phrasal categories precede nonphrasal categories. That is, head-initial languages are right-branching and head-final languages are left-branching. Based on BDT, the Turkish-Persian language is head-final language and therefore it must be left-branching, but its data, specifically the adjective and the standard of construction does not follow this theory. Moreover, the BDT theory cannot predict the correct occurrence of the verb and object correlation pairs. In general, the evidence of this language showed that Head-Dependent Theory, Branching Direction Theory, and Cross-Category Harmony Principle cannot explain the typological word order behavior of this mixed Turkish-Persian language.


 

---

In the present research word order has been used to determine the type of Eastern Armenian Language in comparison to the groups of “Eurasian” and “world” languages based on Dryer's (1992) “Branching Direction Theory”. Dryer (1992), has introduced 23 correlation pairs as verb-patterned and object-patterned, to determine the word order in languages. He has argued against Greenberg's (1963) “Head-Dependent Theory” and by presenting “Branching Direction Theory” has concluded that the word order correlations reflect a tendency for languages to be consistently right-branching or consistently left-branching. The main question here is to investigate the belonging of Eastern Armenian language to the OV or VO language types, in comparison to “Eurasian” as well as “world languages”. In achieving the research goals, 19 valid correlation pairs have been analyzed within the collected data. The results show that Eastern Armenian language in comparison to group of “Eurasian” languages has 14 characteristics of strong OV languages and 15 characteristics of strong VO languages, hence, it has a tendency to VO languages; In case of its comparison to the group of “world languages” it has 14 characteristics of strong OV languages and 14 characteristics of strong VO languages, hence, it has a tendency to both OV and VO languages. Furthermore, it illustrates that despite Dryer's (1992) claim, the Eastern Armenian language does not have tendency to be classified consistently in a left-branching or right-branching type. Based on these, the median type could be considered as an independent type for Eastern Armenian language.
1. Introduction
One of the most important topics in language typology is the study of word order in languages. Dreyer is among the most well known linguists in this field. He (1992) has introduced 23 correlation pairs as verb-patterned and object-patterned, to determine the word order in languages and by presenting “Branching Direction Theory” he has concluded that the word order correlations reflect a tendency for languages to be consistently right-branching or consistently left-branching. The main question here is to investigate the belonging of Eastern Armenian Language to the OV or VO language types, in comparison to “Eurasian” as well as “world languages”.

2. Literature Review
The question of whether the basic word order in Eastern Armenian is OV or VO is a matter of controversy. Many descriptive and typological studies consider it to be a SOV language (Der-Houssikian, 1978; Dryer, 1998; Dum-Tragut, 2002; Howkins, 1979; Hawkins, 1983; Kozentseva, 1995; Minassian, 1980). The studies based on the generative grammar have placed it in group of SOV languages, considering that it is head final, therefore SVO order is considered as the result of movement (Hodgson, 2013; Giorgi & Haroutyunian, 2016; Kahnemuyipour & Megerdoomian, 2011; Tamrazian, 1991; Tamrazian, 1994). Some studies have placed it the median type between OV and VO (Dum-Tragut, 2009; Dryer, 2013 in WALS). Other grammarian believe that SVO is its basic order (Abrahamyan, 1975; Arakelyan, 1958; Badikyan, 1976; Papoyan & Badikyan, 2003). Faghiri and Samvelian (2019) show that the distribution of SVO order is too high to qualify as a marked option.


3. Methodology
As a descriptive-analytical study, the main data collection of the present research has been provided by the first author as a native Eastern Armenian speaker in the form of sentences, clauses and phrases in Eastern Armenian. In addition the gathered data has been asked from 15 other Iranian-Armenian speakers and have been compared to the examples of Avetisyan and Zakaryan (2012).

4. Results
The results show that 4 out of 23 correlation pairs do not apply in Eastern Armenian which are as follows: 1. adpositional phrases and manner adverbs, 2. order of verb and negative particle, 3. order of content verb and negative auxiliary verb and 4. order of plural word and noun.
The 19 correlation pairs which are used in this study are 1. adposition and NP, 2. N and Relative clause, 3. noun and genitive, 4. adjective and standard of comparison, 5. verb and adpositional phrase, 6. verb and manner adverb, 7. copula and predicate, 8. "want" and subordinate verb, 9. noun and adjective, 10. noun and demonstrative, 11. adjective and intensifier, 12. tense/aspect auxiliary and verb, 13. question particle and sentence, 14. adverbial subordinator and S, 15. noun and article, 16. verb and subject, 17. numeral and noun, 18. tense/aspect affix and verb stem, 19. possessive affix and noun.     
There are two differences between results of present research in compared to Wals data. The first difference is about adposition. Examples 1 to 4 respectively show that Eastern Armenian has pretposition, postposition and adpositions which used as both preposition and postposition.
Example 1. preposition

ARA-n	gn-AtsH	depi	tun
Ara-DEF	go-3SG.PAST	to	home

"Ara went home."
Example 2. postposition

ARA-n	siRAn-i	pHoxARen	kARtH-AtsH
Ara-DEF	Siran-ezafe	instead of	read-3SG.PAST

"Ara read instead of Siran."
Example 3. preposition

bAtsHi	ARAj-itsH	mARtH	tSH-kA-R
but	Ara-ABL	person	NEG-be-3SG.PAST

"There was no one but Ara."
Example 4. postposition

ARAj-itsH	batsHi	mARtH	tSH-kA-R
Ara-ABL	But	Person	NEG-be-3SG.PAST

"There was no one but Ara."
The second difference is about question particle which could be placed at the beginning, middle or end of the sentence. Alternatively, the sentence can be used without question particle. Examples 5 to 8 show the position of question particle while example 9 represents a sentence without question particle.
Example 5.

ARtHjokH	du	indz	siR-um	es
Q-marker	You	Me	like-PROG	2SG.PRES.AUX

"Do you like me?"
Example 6.

du	ARtHjokH	indz	siR-um	es
you	Q-marker	me	like-PROG	2SG.PRES.AUX

"Do you like me?"
Example 7.

du	indz	ARtHjokH	siR-um	es
you	me	Q-marker	like-PROG	2SG.PRES.AUX

            "Do you like me?"
Example 8.

du	indz	siR-um	es	ARtHjokH
you	me	like-PROG	2SG.PRES.AUX	Q-marker

"Do you like me?"
     Example 9.

du	indz	siR-um	es
you	me	like-PROG	2SG.PRES.AUX

       "Do you like me?"
The results show that Eastern Armenian language in comparison to group of “Eurasian” languages has 14 characteristics of strong OV languages and 15 characteristics of strong VO languages, hence, it has a tendency to VO languages; In case of its comparison to the group of “world languages” it has 14 characteristics of strong OV languages and 14 characteristics of strong VO languages, hence, it has a tendency to both OV and VO languages. Table 1 shows Eastern Armenian language in comparison to Eurasian languages and table 2 shows Eastern Armenian language in comparison to world languages.

Table 1.
Eastern Armenian language in comparison to Eurasian languages

Element

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total

Type

Strong verb final

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

14

Weak verb final

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

Weak Verb medial

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

Strong Verb medial

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

15

Table 2:
 Eastern Armenian language in comparison to world languages

	Element	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	Total
Type
Strong verb final		X	X	X	X	X	X	X			X	X	X			X	X	X	X		14
Weak verb final		X			X	X			X	X			X	X	X					X	9
Weak verb medial		X		X	X	X	X	X		X			X			X					9
Strong Verb medial		X	X		X	X			X		X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	14

5. Conclusion
The research findings show that in comparison to the group of “Eurasian” languages Eastern Armenian has a tendency towards VO languages. In case of its comparison to the group of “world languages”, it has a tendency to both OV and VO languages. Based on these, the median type could be considered as an independent type for Eastern Armenian language.
 

---

One of the main problems in the classical methods for analyzing crack is a discontinuity in materials and specific conditions at the crack tip. Existing computational methods for the modeling of fracture in a continuous body are based on the partial differential equations of classical continuum mechanics. These methods suffer from the inherent limitation that the spatial derivatives required do not exist at crack tips or along crack surfaces. To overcome this problem, Peridynamic theory (PD), which has been introduced in recent years, could be used to improve the analysis of cracked structures. In the present paper the crack growth and propagation in an inclined crack in the plate is studied. The governing equation is developed and solved using Peridynamic theory and the results are validated using other investigations. Effects of various pre-crack angles and speeds of load application are studied. As it will be illustrated, the PD theory can reasonably model an inclined crack growth and predict the complex phenomenon of crack linear growth or crack branching at various conditions of applying loads. In addition, the results show that the amount of crack growth can be increased by increasing the rate of loading.