American Journal Of Philological Sciences
144
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
144-148
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-39
Investigating Issues In The Semantics Of Syntactic Units
In Uzbek Linguistics
M. Khalilova
Senior Lecturer at Fergana State University, PhD in Philology, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
17 June 2025
Abstract:
This article discusses the studies conducted by Uzbek linguists on the semantic analysis of syntactic
units, focusing on the identification of semantic relations arising between parts of compound sentences and
microtext components. It also reflects on the development of novel principles of semantic grammar aimed at
defining these semantic relations, and the application of such principles to syntactic wholes. The article reviews
research carried out within this framework.
Keywords:
Phenomena, realities, interconnection, semantic relations, syntactic level units, compound sentences,
speech units, semantic essence, supersyntactic wholes, semantic syntax, content of connection, temporal
content, cause-effect content, opposition content, comparison content.
Introduction:
Research in Uzbek linguistics, particularly
within the field of text linguistics, has achieved
significant progress over the past decades in the areas
of syntax and semantics. All existing events,
phenomena,
objects,
and
processes
in
our
environment
are
understood
through
their
interconnections, which are reflected by syntactic units
in language. Notably, semantic relations between the
components of compound sentences play a crucial role
in ensuring the semantic coherence of a text. This
article explores issues related to text linguistics,
microtexts, supersyntactic units, and their semantic-
grammatical analysis. It also reviews contemporary
theories and studies on compound sentences and their
semantic relations within the context of Uzbek
linguistics.
LITERATURE REVIEW
At the end of the 20th century, the study of microtexts
within text semantics gained momentum, focusing
primarily on the semantic relations between small
syntactic units (Quronov, 2004; Mamajonov, 2010) [4,
pp. 71
–
89]. Building on syntactic-grammatical
research, Nurmonov (1992) proposed semantic-
grammatical approaches analyzing the dialectical
relationship between form and meaning in sentences
[6, pp. 178
–189]. Additionally, Shuvalova’s (1987)
research on compound sentences in Russian adopted
an ideographic approach to semantic relations [2].
Mamajonov and Abdupattoev (2014) conducted an in-
depth analysis of text syntax, identifying methods that
ensure the semantic unity of microtext components
[3].
METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
The study employs linguistic, semantic, and textual
analysis methods. Core methodologies include
syntactic and semantic analysis, examination and
interpretation of text structure, and identification of
semantic relations between compound sentence
components. The dialectical approach is utilized to
analyze the inseparable connection between form and
meaning of linguistic units. Furthermore, ideographic
and functional approaches are applied to deepen the
understanding of semantic relations within complex
syntactic structures.
The main part
In the material world surrounding us, all existing
objects, phenomena, and realities manifest themselves
in interconnection with related processes and
situations. This interconnectedness determines their
various levels of semantic relations, which further
reveal their unique nature, facets, and essence more
vividly. These semantic relations occur in linguistic units
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
145
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
in one way or another. In particular, semantic relations
are most fully realized at the syntactic level, emerging
among components of speech units, serving to
illuminate the semantic essence of events and
phenomena, as well as their distinctive features.
In the late last century, text semantics
—
more precisely,
the study of the semantic characteristics of
microtexts
—
developed on the basis of examining
semantic relations expressed by small syntactic units
through compound sentences. During research and
analysis of the semantic relations and their stylistic
features manifested through compound sentence
structures,
theories
emerged
regarding
the
interconnection and semantic relations of microtext
parts. Identifying and studying the semantic relations
between components of compound sentences became
crucial in determining and explaining the semantic
relations arising between parts of microtexts
—
supersyntactic wholes.
For the current development and improvement of
Uzbek linguistics, traditional syntax laid the theoretical
foundation. Eminent scholars initially created theories
and principles on syntactic connections and relations
and the formation of compound sentences, defined
syntactic laws, and primarily studied syntax from a
formal perspective. However, linguists focused on the
various semantic relations resulting from the
connection of compound sentence components.
Notably, in the 1987 textbook "Modern Uzbek Literary
Language (Syntax)" by A. G‘ulomov and M. Asqarov,
while describing the structure of compound sentences,
ideas on the semantic relations within them were also
expressed. The meaning expressed by each type of
compound sentence is analyzed not from the
perspective of generalized semantic relations like
temporal, adversative, or positional relations, but
rather based on the methods of connection of
components within each type
—
such as coordinated
compound sentences, asyndetic compound sentences,
and subordinate compound sentences. Each type's
characteristic semantic relation forms are analyzed
accordingly.
In the final decades of the 20th century, research based
on a novel approach to compound sentences
—
as the
main units expressing primary ideas at the syntactic
level
—
emerged
prominently.
One
particularly
significant aspect of compound sentences is their
functional use in speech according to their semantic
essence. Dedicated to this, Professor A. Mamajonov
authored the monograph “Stylisti
cs of Compound
Sentences.” This work addresses several pressing issues
of syntactic stylistics by systematically exploring how
means that shape speech types operate within
compound sentence structures. It examines the role of
compound sentences in enhancing emotional
expressiveness and details the characteristics of
syntactic-stylistic figures used therein.
A notable and valuable feature of Mamajonov’s study
is its attempt to generalize semantic relations
—
previously insufficiently researched by other scholars
—
and to demonstrate, with linguistic evidence, the
existence of the following semantic relations emerging
between components of compound sentences: 1.
additive (coordinative) content, 2. temporal content, 3.
conditional content, 4. causal content, 5. explanatory
content, 6. adversative content, 7. comparative
content, 8. similative content, 9. purposive content, 10.
separative content, 11. degree-quantitative content,
12. modal content, and 13. polysemantic compound
sentences.
This comprehensive classification highlights the
complexity and multifunctionality of compound
sentences within Uzbek syntax and stylistics [4, 71-89].
At the syntactic level, scholars have extensively studied
the realization of compound sentences in speech, their
semantic-stylistic features, and the phenomenon of
parallel use of various types of compound sentences to
express a unified content. In this research, important
theoretical perspectives have been introduced
regarding macro-syntactic units
—
specifically, groups of
relatively independent clauses that function as text
units
—
and their functional types. Additionally, factors
contributing to the emergence of semantic
characteristics of microtexts have been identified and
analyzed.
In the world, all events and phenomena are
interconnected in one way or another. Logically, an
event that is not related to any other event does not
exist. This interconnectedness can manifest in different
forms, for example, an event may be connected to
another as a consequence, by the time of occurrence,
by purpose, or through other relationships ... [5, 219-
220].
The above discussion clearly shows that in the final
decades of the 20th century, new theoretical
approaches emerged in syntax, focusing on the formal
and semantic structures of simple and compound
sentences and the semantic relations among their
constituent parts. During this period, linguistics
advanced from merely examining the formal principles
governing grammatical units and syntactic structures
toward emphasizing the study of the meaning
expressed within these structures. This shift
—
moving
from form to meaning
—
became one of the key
challenges for modern syntactic theory.
Among the foremost contributions to this theoretical
development was made by Professor A. Nurmonov. He
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
146
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
introduced innovative frameworks dedicated to the
semantic analysis of grammatical units, particularly
addressing the concordance and discordance between
the formal and semantic structures of simple and
compound sentences. Nurmonov proposed methods
for analyzing syntactic units from a semantic
perspective and established principles for investigating
the semantic relations that arise among the parts of
syntactic wholes. His research played a significant role
in clarifying how meaning relations within complex
syntactic units can be identified and systematically
studied [6, 178-189]. The scholar describes the
principle of studying and analyzing sentences from
meaning to form as follows:
“Depending on the perspective adopted by the
researcher, grammatical units can be classified as
active or passive in grammar. The method of analyzing
from form to meaning is known as the semiological
approach... Semantic grammar follows the principle of
meaning to form. It studies how elements of the
objective reality, reflected in the mind and manifested
as generalized images, find their expression in
language. Formal grammar, on the other hand,
operates based on the semiological principle,
proceeding from form to meaning.” [6, 179].
Linguist A. Nurmonov, who was the first to define the
directions for investigating the logical-semantic aspects
of grammatical units, especially in his manual on
semantic syntax, laid a fundamental theoretical
foundation for new approaches to the semantic-
structural features of compound sentences. He
emphasized
that every
sentence,
particularly
compound sentences, is a bilateral unit comprising
both an expressive (form) side and a semantic (content)
side. According to Nurmonov, the semantic analysis of
such sentences must be conducted in accordance with
the dialectical laws governing the relationship between
form and meaning [5, 215]. This idea is grounded on the
notion that meanings emerge directly through the
interaction of various linguistic means and their
relationships within language. The semantic aspect of
syntactic units reflects their connection to real-world
states, processes, and objects, thereby aiding in
uncovering their true essence.
Furthermore, the scholar discusses theories about the
realization of semantic relations, explaining that
semantic-logical relations primarily arise between
components of compound sentences. He specifically
notes:
“…subordinate compound sentences differ from
coordinated compound sentences due to the nature of
their semantic-structural relations and the significantly
more complex semantic, logical, and syntactic
mechanisms that generate these relations. Therefore,
evaluating subordinate compound sentences presents
considerable challenges…” [5, 212]. Accordingly,
Nurmonov explains that the ongoing controversial
debates regarding the evaluation and classification of
subordinate compound sentences stem primarily from
the diversity of semantic relations expressed between
their components. He argues that this variety
complicates clear categorization and assessment.
At the same time, Nurmonov comments on S.A.
Shuvalova’s research titled “Semantic Relations in
Compound Sentences and Their Means of Expression”,
which focuses on compound sentences in Russian from
an ideographic perspective. He particularly highlights
that Shuvalova’s monograp
h is fundamentally built on
the aspect of identifying a specific “idea” conveyed by
a linguistic sign
—
that is, the search for a language
marker expressing a particular semantic notion. This
observation
underscores
the
importance
of
ideographic approaches in studying semantic relations
within compound sentences, especially in the context
of subordinate structures [2].
With the further development of syntactic theories,
Uzbek linguist A. Mamajonov, who laid the
foundational theory of text linguistics, discusses in his
textbook Text Linguistics the methods of combination
and connective means that ensure the semantic
integrity of microtext components (small functional
blocks). He also determines the origin of semantic
relations among text components, emphasizing how
these relations arise from the ways components are
linked and integrated within the text structure [2].
It is known that compound sentence components
express semantic relations such as coordination,
comparison, opposition, cause-effect, condition-time,
specification, and explanation. These relations are
realized through syntactic linking devices that connect
components within the three types of compound
sentences: asyndetic, coordinated, and subordinate
compound sentences. Such syntactic devices include
intonation, conjunctions, words functioning as
connectors, clause order, pronouns, repetition of
certain words, shared secondary elements, and
temporal relations of predicates. It is evident that
syntactic linkage in compound sentences is established
between predicative units. In the text, syntactic
connections emerge between entire sentences,
superfrazal syntactic wholes, paragraphs, sections, and
chapters, ensuring both semantic and structural unity.
Between relatively independent sentences forming the
text, strong semantic connections are established,
which contribute to the coherence and integrity of the
entire discourse [2, 15-16].
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
147
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
To provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the
phenomena under study, a deeper approach is
required, where the full reflection of relationships
between events is represented by the semantic unity of
several relatively independent clauses (simple or
compound sentences). This unity forms a small
"semantic core"
—
a speech unit aimed at conveying a
single, coherent idea that elucidates a particular topic.
Compared
to
compound
sentences,
such
supersyntactic wholes express any content more
extensively and completely.
Microtexts (supersyntactic units) arise in connection
with indicating the purpose or cause of an event, its
place, specification, supplementation, or explanation.
They do not merely express limited semantic relations;
instead, their components interact with each other to
present the relationships between events in a
semantically complete manner with all relevant details.
In previous research within text linguistics, the
semantic study of supersyntactic wholes has been
theoretically elaborated in the subsequent manuals by
A. Mamajonov and M. Abdupattoev, reflecting their
significant contribution to this field [3].
Professor A. Mamajonov, in his study of Uzbek
linguistics, investigates microtexts under the term
“supersyntactic syntactic wholes” (SSWs). He proposes
that SSWs can be categorized based on their syntactic-
stylistic functions into the following types: repetitive
SSWs, descriptive SSWs, and explanatory SSWs.
Since microtext (SSW) components consist of various
types of clauses, the semantic relations between them
are diverse. Predominantly, the semantic relations
among SSW components include coordination,
temporal relations, cause-effect relations, comparison,
and explanation. Although the components within an
SSW are formally independent, semantically they unite
around a common central idea, expressing a logical
unity.
A fundamental characteristic of textual coherence is
the semantic connection between the units and parts
(components) that make up the text. This connection
and the unification of components form semantic
cohesion. The complete thought or fully developed
meaning expressed through microtexts requires that
the logical relationship between its components
ensures that one part logically entails another. Within
syntactic wholes, semantic ties exist among
components, and their combination results in the
expression of various semantic relations.
In scholarly literature on text linguistics, researchers
have used terms such as "complex syntactic whole" [7,
277-284], "supersyntactic syntactic whole" [2, 23] and
"supersyntactic whole" [5, 94-95] to refer to large
syntactic structures.
In the study of simple sentences, the issue of actual
division into topic and comment has been analyzed by
A. Hayitmetov, who described the topic as the "known
part" and the comment as the "unknown part" of the
sentence [3].
A. Nurmonov, who established principles for the
semantic study of syntactic units, introduced novel
perspectives on the communicative aspects of
sentences, particularly concerning the relationship
between topic and comment as "known" and "new"
information. He emphasized that in any syntactic
construction, the elements forming the sentence are
divided into topic (known) and comment (new) parts
from the viewpoint of their communicative function,
i.e., their actual role in conveying the communicative
goal. Nurmonov highlights that the comment (rheme)
is the most significant part of the sentence, serving as
the communicative center or focus of the utterance [6].
Linguists A. Mamajonov and M. Abdupattoev, in their
textbook Text Syntax, were the first to emphasize that
various semantic relations expressed through
microtexts are reflected in the topic-comment relations
within syntactic wholes. They highlighted that the
topic-rheme relations are also manifested in text units,
and that the largest text unit
—
the supersyntactic
whole
—
is closely connected with the issue of the actual
division of the sentence. Moreover, microtexts exhibit
actual division just like simple sentences, where the
topic represents the subject of the utterance (i.e., what
the thought is about), and the comment (rheme)
provides the development or explanation of the topic,
clarifying its content [3].
Thus, the emergence of semantic relations in
supersyntactic wholes (SSWs) through topic-rheme
relations is determined by the internal semantic
connectivity among the sentences constituting the
SSWs, whereby the main idea is conveyed by providing
information about the topic. It is especially emphasized
that a semantic (content) relation arises between the
topic and rheme of supersyntactic wholes.
In microtexts, the topic is realized through the first
relatively independent sentence, which serves as the
main foundational component of the microtext and
defines the semantic core of this complex unit. The
topic is established by this initial sentence. Regardless
of the number of relatively independent sentences that
make up the microtext, the remaining sentences serve
to illuminate, explain, compare, or provide additional
information about the topic, thereby functioning as the
rheme. This sequential structure reflects the
manifestation of the topic-rheme relation in
microtexts.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
148
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Like other speech units, microtexts possess distinctive
features. They are characterized by the complete,
precise, and comprehensive expression of thought
relative to the sentence. Sentences within such a unit
are semantically and grammatically interconnected and
serve to express various semantic relations such as
temporal, coordinative, explanatory, comparative,
causal, and similative relations. Furthermore, a single
microtext can express several complex semantic
relations simultaneously, which underscores the vast
and multifaceted functional role of such complex
syntactic wholes in speech.
Because microtext components consist of various types
of relatively independent sentences, the semantic
relations among them are also diverse.
In the 1990s, during the process of studying the
semantic structure of texts in Uzbek linguistics, the
concept of “textually connected sentences” was
introduced. These sentences are such that their
meaning and content can only be clarified through the
preceding sentence; they are semantically tightly linked
to the prior sentence. When used independently, their
reference
—
what or whom they are about, or which
events they describe
—
is unclear, and their meaning
remains highly vague. Their semantic content becomes
clear only when combined with the preceding
sentence. Such sentences were termed “textually
connected sentences.” [10, 38
-39]. Such sentences are
semantically closely connected to the preceding
sentence and together form the category of text,
necessitating the semantic study of this text category.
The semantic analysis of texts places great importance
on these sentences because those that are tightly
semantically linked to the previous sentence
collectively create the text as a whole.
CONCLUSION
The investigation of semantic relations in compound
sentences
within
text
linguistics
contributes
significantly to a profound understanding of the
semantic dimension of syntactic units. These relations
ensure the coherence and logical unity of texts.
Historical and current research in Uzbek linguistics,
particularly by Mamajonov and Nurmonov, has laid a
solid theoretical foundation for this field, retaining its
relevance today. Continued practical and theoretical
research in this area will substantially contribute to the
advancement of linguistic sciences.
REFERENCES
Абдупаттоев М. Ўзбек матнида суперсинтактик
бутунликлар: Филол.фан.ном. ...дисс. автореферати.
–
Т., 1998.
Мамажонов А. Текст лингвистикаси. Ўқув
қўлланма.–
Т., 1989.
Мамажонов А., Абдупаттоев М. Матн синтаксиси. –
Фарғона, 2002.
Мамажонов А. Қўшма гап стилистикаси. –
Тошкент:
Фан, 1990.
Нурмонов
А.,
Маҳмудов
Н.,
Аҳмедов
А.,
Солихўжаева
С.
Ўзбек
тилининг
мазмуний
синтаксиси. –
Т.: Фан, 1992.
Нурмонов А. Танланган асарлар.III жилдлик, III
жилд. –
Тошкент, 2012.
Расулов И. Мураккаб синтактик бутунликлар.
Танланган асарлар, II жилд,
-
Тошкент: MUMTOZ
SO‘Z, 2015.
Ҳайитметов А. Ўзбек тилида гапнинг актуал
бўлиниши ва позицион масалалари. –
Т.: Фан, 1984.
Ғуломов А., Асқарова М. Ҳозирги ўзбек адабий тили.
Синтаксис. –
Тошкент: Ўқитувчи, 1987.
Халилова М. Матний боғлиқ гаплар семантикаси //
Ўзбек тилшунослигига оид тадқиқотлар. Республика
ёш
тилшуносларининг
анъанавий
илмий
конференцияси материаллари. ( VI чиқиш) –
Тошкент, 1994. –
Б.38
-39.
