American Journal Of Philological Sciences
354
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
354-356
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-92
Observations On Case Forms In Some Turkic Languages
Matluba Maxmudova
Basic Doctoral Student of Tashkent State University Of Uzbek Language And Literature, Uzbekistan
Received:
13 April 2025;
Accepted:
17 May 2025;
Published:
30 June 2025
Abstract:
Each language possesses its unique characteristics, both grammatically and lexically. It is well known
that in the 20th century, the theory of Uzbek grammar was developed based on the Russian language grammar
model. This influence is clearly reflected in the number and functional-semantic features of case forms, although
these two languages belong to different language families. This article discusses the specific features of the case
category in Turkic languages.
Keywords:
Case, category, paradigm, word form, nominative, instrumental case.
Introduction:
The category of case is a grammatical
system of forms that, after the number category (and if
present, after the possessive form, but before
conjugational markers), is added to a word to express
syntactic relations. Case forms also emdiv
morphological features, which will be discussed in
more detail in our future articles.
The process by which the case forms of a word are
altered is called inflection, and the case form itself is
referred to as inflective. The inflective belongs to the
derivational type of grammatical morphemes. The case
marker completes the word, converting a base into a
full-fledged word. In this respect, the case marker is
generally the final element in the morphemic structure
of a word (with the exception of words functioning as
predicates or those preceded by postpositions).
The case, first and foremost, is not a word class
indicator, but a grammatical form that determines
syntactic roles. From this perspective, the case is
considered an inter-class category. However, the case
category is not uniformly applicable to all word classes.
For instance, it is naturally inherent to nouns, and is one
of the essential forms for the appearance of noun
lexemes in speech. Besides nouns, other parts of
speech can also take case forms, including pronouns,
verbal nouns, and certain forms of collective numerals.
These can be considered noun-like forms of other word
classes.
The third group consists of nominalized forms of other
parts of speech. For this group, case is not an essential,
permanent, or primary form, but is added when
required by context or syntactic function. These include
adjectives, adjective-pronouns, participles, and others.
Case forms are attached to nominal parts of speech.
Based on the above, the words that take case forms can
be divided into the following groups:
1.
Nouns
2.
Noun-like words (closely resembling nouns)
3.
Nominalized words (forms of other classes
functioning as nouns)
This tripartite classification is necessary not only for
analyzing case forms but also for examining number
and possessive categories.
Case does not form all syntactic units (sentence
elements) in speech. For instance, it does not
participate in the formation of attributes. However,
many sentence components and even certain sentence
types are formed with case. For example, syntactic
units such as the subject, possessive modifier,
apposition, and nominative sentence all involve case
forms. Even predicate and adverbial modifiers may
partially be expressed using case forms. Hence, the
case category plays a vital role in the formation of
syntactic structures.
Modern Standard Uzbek employs a six-case system:
1.
Nominative case
2.
Genitive case
3.
Accusative case
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
355
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
4.
Ablative case
5.
Dative case
6.
Locative/Temporal case
Case Paradigm
Linguistic units exist in paradigmatic, syntagmatic, and
hierarchical relations. They operate within a
grammatical-semantic system in which two or more
units mutually presuppose or exclude one another.
SCIENTIFIC-THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON CASE
FORMS IN SOME TURKIC LANGUAGES
We can classify the object of our linguistic study within
the language system as follows:
1.
Grammatical-semantic system
2.
Grammatical-semantic field
3.
Grammatical category
4.
Grammatical paradigm
5.
Grammatical form
6.
Grammatical meaning
Among the grammatical categories in agglutinative
languages, the case category stands out for its rich
variations and positional-semantic alternatives. In the
Turkish language, which belongs to this group, case
suffixes are called ad durum ekleri. The Turkish
language has six cases, just like Uzbek, and they
correspond as follows:
1.
Nominative case
–
yalın hâl
2.
Genitive case
–
ilgi hâli
3.
Accusative case
–
belirtme hâli
4.
Ablative case
–
ayrılma hâli
5.
Dative case
–
yönelme hâli
6.
Locative/Temporal case
–
bulunma hâli
Furthermore, some Turkish scholars assert that there
are seven or even nine types of cases. According to
[Ergin M., Universiteler için Türk Dili, Bayrak Basımevi,
Istanbul, 2000], three more suffixes can also be
considered as cases:
1) Instrumental case
–
vasıta hâli
2) Equative case
–
eşitlik hâli
3) Directional case
–
yön gösterme hâli
In historical grammar works on the Uzbek (and Turkic)
languages, additional information is found regarding
the existence of an instrumental case. [1, p. 96] This
suggests that the number of case forms in Uzbek is not
limited to six but is in fact much higher.
In
inflectional
languages
—
particularly
Russian
linguistics
—
a wide range of studies has been devoted
to the case category, including “the meanings of cases,”
“the theory
of case meanings,” “the problem of
classifying cases,” “general theory of cases,” “case
field,” and “case and vocative,” among others. The
abundance of such studies and the repeated
investigation of the case category indicates that it is a
central and multifaceted phenomenon in linguistic
theory.
In the last quarter of the 20th century, significant
research into the semantics of case in Russian
linguistics was conducted by scholars such as Shvedova,
Zolotova, Arutyunova, Popova, Beloshapkova, Gak,
Khodova, Cheshko, and Revzin. In global linguistics,
representatives of structural linguistics such as Ch.
Fillmore, A. Wierzbicka, E. Babbie, and S. Adamson
explored the case system from "functional-semantic,"
"system-structural,"
and
"typological-logical"
perspectives.
What do "invariant" and "variant" mean? Is an invariant
always necessary, or can a form exist without one? Is
the concept of a variant the same across all language
levels? To what extent can elements of a language
structure become variant? When do differing elements
emerge from the spread of variants? In Russian
linguistics, research was initiated to answer such
questions in various fields.
With its abstract grammatical meaning, case expresses
the syntactic and semantic relationship of a noun to
other words or phrases in a sentence, i.e., it shows how
a noun is connected to either naming or predicating
units in speech.
Many researchers study case either as a morphological
category or as a syntactic one. In semantic syntax,
especially when analyzing the asymmetrical nature of
sentence elements, the case paradigm becomes the
object of investigation in two ways:
1.
As part of the noun paradigm (morphological
category)
2.
As part of word combinations or sentences
(syntactic category)
Since case reflects the syntactic relationship of a
dependent word to a governing word, there are
situations where case is used in the absence of a
governing word and thus serves a semantic rather than
syntactic function (e.g., “This gift is for you,” “I hope for
you”). In suc
h instances, case goes beyond its general
grammatical meaning and not only links but also adds
additional semantic content.
As a sentence element, case can create multilayered
oppositions. For instance, based on the criterion of
"inability to function as a subject," the nominative case
is seen as weak, whereas other cases are considered
strong. Based on the ability to act as a direct object
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
356
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
without prepositions, the nominative, accusative, and
ablative cases form a partial opposition: the nominative
and ablative cases are unmarked, while the accusative
case is marked because it is specifically designed for
that function. This list can be extended based on such
features.
Semantic criteria can also serve as a basis for
opposition. For example, based on “posses
sion of
definiteness,” the nominative is weak (as it may express
both definite and indefinite meanings), whereas other
cases express definiteness more strongly:
“He went to school” (Maktab ketdi) vs. “He went
toward the school” (Maktabga ketdi).
While many such semantic oppositions can be
identified, the most stable and prominent basis for case
oppositions remains syntactic features. Under the
“shadow” of absolute syntactic opposition, semantic
features are also revealed.
Syntactically,
the
case
category
expresses
subordination; semantically, it serves to indicate
objecthood, eventivity, and locality.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, every language is unique and possesses
its own distinct grammatical and lexical systems. As is
well known, the grammar of the Uzbek language was
developed based on Russian grammatical models in the
20th century. This influence is clearly reflected in the
number and functional-semantic features of case
forms. However, as these two languages belong to
entirely different language families, the case paradigm
in Uzbek should be considered as a separate system.
The number and functional-semantic features of cases
must be defined in accordance with the intrinsic
properties of the Turkic languages.
REFERENCES
1.
O‘zbek tili grammatikasi. I tom. O‘zbekiston . “Fan”
nashriyoti,1975.
2.
“O‘zbek tiling izohli lug‘ati” .
-Toshkent: 2006.
3.
X.A.Dadaboyev, Z.T. Xolmanova. Turkiy tillarning
qiyosiy-tarixiy grammatikasi. -
Toshkent: “Tafakkur
bo‘stoni ”, 2015.
4.
B.Mengliyev, O‘.Xoliyorov ,N. Abdurahmonova.
O‘zbek tilidan universal qo‘llanma
-Toshkent:
“Akademnashr ”, 2015 .
5.
H. Ne’matov. Chegara kelishigi // O‘zbek tili va
adabiyoti jurnali,1971.
6.
Rasulov R.O‘zbek tilida bosh kelishik va uning
grammatikfunksiyalari/1956.
7.
Rasulov R. Chiqish kelishigi/ Andijon, 1957.
8.
Ma’rufov A. O‘zbek adabiy tilidagi ikki kelishik
formasi haqi
da// O‘zbek tili va adabiyoti
masalalari,1958.
9.
G‘.Abdurahmonov, Sh. Shukurov, Q. Mahmudov.
O‘zbek tilining tarixiy grammatikasi –
Toshkent,
2008.
