Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
53
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
53-56
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
As we explore Uzbek linguists’ views on the morpheme, we encounter two distinct perspectives: the traditional
interpretation of morpheme study and the views of those who support a more modern approach. This article
compares the views of scholars who advocate the traditional perspective on morpheme analysis. The author criticizes
the evaluation of morpheme as a component of the word. Consequently, throughout this research, the author
presents his personal views on the opinions of other scholars in the field.
KEYWORDS
Morpheme, word structure, intermediate morpheme, lexeme-morpheme, intermediate third, agglutinative
languages, affixes.
INTRODUCTION
First and foremost, it is important to note that the
concept of morpheme was introduced by Baudouin de
Courtenay. He defined morpheme as the smallest
morphological unit of a language that cannot be
further
divided
into
smaller
morphological
components. Baudouin was born in Poland, and thus,
his definition of morpheme was shaped by the
characteristics of Slavic languages. Naturally, the
lexical, morphological, and syntactic features of Slavic
languages do not align with those of Uzbek, and as a
Research Article
TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MORPHEME IN
UZBEK LINGUISTICS
Submission Date:
October 02, 2024,
Accepted Date:
October 07, 2024,
Published Date:
October 12, 2024
Crossref doi
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume04Issue10-08
Nodirbek Khabibillayev Nosirjon o’gli
Researcher at Namangan State Pedagogical Institute, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
54
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
53-56
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
result, importing lexical and grammatical principles
from these languages into Uzbek has caused
significant linguistic problems, which will be discussed
further in this study.
METHODOLOGY
The concept of morpheme was introduced into Uzbek
linguistics during the Soviet era. Due to the strong
influence of the Russian language at that time, many
new linguistic concepts, including the notion of
morpheme, were imposed upon Uzbek linguistics, as
A
zim Hojiyev puts it, “by force.” Consequently, various
problems arose, which continued until the time of
academician Azim Hojiyev, who took it upon himself to
address these issues. Until then, the view that a
morpheme is the smallest, indivisible meaningful part
of a word was widely accepted by almost all scholars.
This traditional view of morpheme as a component of
the
word
persisted
until
Hojiyev’s
critical
reassessment.
In Uzbek linguistics, the concept of morpheme, along
with its distinct characteristics in Slavic languages,
entered the field. According to the traditional
definition, a morpheme is an indivisible, meaningful
part of a word. In the following sections, we will
examine the views of scholars who accept this concept
of morpheme.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ayub Ghulomov noted the need to study morphemics
and word formation separately, thereby establishing
morphemics as a distinct branch of linguistics. In the
1970s, morphemics began to be studied separately in
Uzbek linguistics as well. Ghulomov’s m
ajor
contribution was recognizing morphemes as both a
collection of morphs and a generalized unit, affirming
their role as distinct elements in the language system.
O. Usmon and B. Avizov suggested that the basic,
indivisible part of a derived word is the
“root,” while
the remaining part after removing inflectional (form-
building) elements is the “stem.” This idea, proposed
in 1939, was later challenged by Azim Hojiyev in 2010,
and no one had previously raised objections. Since the
concepts of root and stem are not typical for Turkic
languages, we find Hojiyev’s criticism justified.
Yormat Tojiyev emphasized the distinction between
words and morphemes, noting that a root morpheme
is not equivalent to a word, and a word is not
equivalent to a root morpheme. For instance, in the
word “ishchi” (worker), the root morpheme is “ish”
(work). When an affix is added, the word “ishchi” is
formed, which is not simply a root morpheme. Tojiyev
also pointed out that the semantic scope of a root
morpheme and a word are never the same. The
meaning of a root morpheme is extremely limited, and
its meaning is defined within the context of a specific
word (in a small context
—
derived word or form).
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
55
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
53-56
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
In contrast, the meaning of a word is determined
within a larger context
—
such as a sentence.
The view that morphemes are part of a word’s
structure aligns with this perspective. However, as we
will explore later, this is not always the case in Uzbek.
Additionally, Tojiyev proposed that morphemes are
interconnected and lose their morphemic quality when
separated. Although this view may have been accurate
at the time, it no longer holds in modern Uzbek
linguistics. For example, the morpheme “
-
lar” (plural
suffix) exists only when attached to a word and ceases
to exist when separated. This viewpoint, though
appropriate for its time, does not fit with
contemporary Uzbek morphemic theory.
The scholar also observed that affixes may exhibit
phenomena such as homonymy, synonymy, antonymy,
and polysemy. However, as we will discuss, this is not
characteristic of the Uzbek language, or any other
language for that matter. This is because it is illogical to
analyze affixes, which do not carry lexical meaning, in
the same way as words, which can be grouped into
categories based on their meanings.
Thus, w
e have reviewed Yormat Tojiyev’s views on
morpheme. Although his ideas are not entirely
applicable to contemporary Uzbek linguistics, they
represented a forward-thinking approach for his time.
Qalandar Sapayev suggested that affixes are of two
types: derivational and inflectional, and he discussed
their ordering within words and compound affixes.
These views are considered valid, but his claim that
affixes such as “
-
chil” (in “dardchil”) and “
-
dak” (in
“yugurdak”) should not be separated is somewhat
debatable. In our view, these elements have not yet
fully merged into the word structure, and considering
them as separate morphemes is not an incorrect
assumption.
Sapayev also mentioned that, like words, affixes may
display phenomena such as homonymy, polysemy, and
synonymy. However, these phenomena are not
characteristic of agglutinative languages like Turkish.
Most linguists view morphemes as the smallest
meaningful units, thus supporting the idea that words
consist of meaningful parts: roots and affixes.
Sapa
yev’s use of terms such as root and stem suggests
his acceptance of the influence of Russian linguistics on
Uzbek grammar.
Interestingly, Sapayev classifies affixes into three
types:
1. Derivational affixes,
2. Inflectional affixes,
3. Word-altering affixes.
This classification suggests that Sapayev views word-
altering affixes (syntactic inflectional affixes) as
separate from inflectional affixes. However, both
lexical and syntactic inflectional affixes share the
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
56
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
53-56
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
common grammatical function of giving words a
grammatical meaning, and therefore, they should be
grouped together.
CONCLUSION
This article provides specific information on the
introduction of morpheme into Uzbek linguistics and
its subsequent study. It analyzes and compares the
views of linguists on this topic, highlighting their
similarities
and
differences.
Together,
these
perspectives reflect the attitudes toward morpheme in
Uzbek linguistics. While adapting foreign linguistic
concepts can be beneficial, if they are not
appropriately adjusted to the characteristics of the
Uzbek language, the problems they introduce will
persist.
REFERENCES
1.
Berdialiyev A., Ermatov I. Hozirgi O‘zbek adabiy tili.
–
Toshkent: Tamaddun, 2022.
2.
Ҳ
ожиев
А
.
Ҳ
озирги
ўзбек
тилида
форма
ясалиши
.
–
Тошкент
:
Ў
қ
итувчи
, 1979.
3.
Mengliyev B., Xoliyorov O‘. O‘zbek tilidan universal
qo‘llanma. –
Toshkent: Fan, 2008.
4.
Сапаев
Қ
.
Ҳ
озирги
ўзбек
тили
.
–
Тошкент
: 2009.
5.
Тожиев Й. Ўзбек тили морфемикаси. –
Тошкент:
1992.
6.
Ogli, Nodirbek Khabibillayev Nosirjon. "ANALYSIS
OF SOME WORDS IN UZBEK WITH COMPLEX
MORPHOLOGICAL
COMPOSITION."
Next
Scientists Conferences. 2024.
7.
Nosirjon O'g'li, Nodirbek Khabibullaev. "ANALYSIS
OF SOME WORDS IN UZBEK LANGUAGE THAT ARE
DIFFICULT TO SEGMENT." International Scientific
and Current Research Conferences. 2024.
8.
Nosirjon o'g'li, Xabibullayev Nodirbek. "ANALYSIS
OF SOME WORDS WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO
DISTRIBUTE
INTO
UZBEK
LANGUAGE."
International journal of artificial intelligence 4.03
(2024): 592-594.
9.
Habibullayev, Nodirbek Nosirjon O’G’Li. "Qozoq Va
O’Zbek Tilidagi Modal So’Zlar Chog’Ishtirmasi."
Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational,
natural and social sciences 3.5 (2023): 27-33.
