European International Journal of Philological Sciences
61
61
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
61-63
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
23 February 2025
ACCEPTED
20 March 2025
PUBLISHED
22 April 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 04 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Accentual Features in
Uzbek And Turkish: An
Axiolinguistic Approach
Boymatova Dilnoza Baxtiyorovna
Associate Professor at Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This study examines the accentual features in
Uzbek and Turkish from an axiolinguistic perspective.
Accent, as a prosodic feature, plays a crucial role in
meaning formation and communicative intent [1]. The
study explores the functional and perceptual aspects of
stress patterns in both languages, highlighting their
axiological implications. By employing a comparative
analysis, the research identifies similarities and
differences in accentuation, revealing the influence of
sociocultural values on prosody [2]. The findings
contribute to a broader understanding of linguistic
evaluation
mechanisms
in
Turkic
languages.
Additionally, this paper delves into historical linguistics
and the diachronic development of stress patterns in
these languages, providing a more comprehensive view
of the phonological evolution of Uzbek and Turkish [3].
Keywords:
Accentuation, Uzbek, Turkish, axiolinguistics,
stress patterns, prosody, sociocultural values.
Introduction:
Accentuation, as an essential prosodic
element, significantly impacts linguistic meaning and
sociocultural identity [4]. In Turkic languages, including
Uzbek and Turkish, stress placement varies and serves
as a key differentiator of phonological structures.
Axiolinguistics, a branch of linguistics concerned with
language evaluation and values, provides a valuable
framework for examining the role of stress in
communication [5]. This study aims to analyze how
accentual patterns in Uzbek and Turkish reflect cultural
and linguistic values, offering insights into their
functional and evaluative dimensions. Additionally, the
research investigates how language reforms and
phonetic shifts have influenced stress patterns in
modern usage [6]. The study also discusses the
phonological adaptation of borrowed words in both
languages, considering their impact on contemporary
spoken discourse [7]. Furthermore, the study takes into
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
62
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
account sociolinguistic factors that influence accentual
variation, such as education level, media exposure, and
bilingualism [8].
METHODOLOGY
The study employs a comparative linguistic approach,
analyzing phonetic data from native speakers of Uzbek
and Turkish [3]. A qualitative assessment of recorded
speech samples was conducted to identify dominant
stress patterns and their communicative significance
[2]. Additionally, secondary sources, including
linguistic studies on Turkic prosody, were reviewed to
contextualize the findings. The research also integrates
an axiolinguistic framework to interpret the
sociocultural impact of accentual features [1].
Furthermore, diachronic linguistic analysis was applied
to trace the historical development of stress patterns
in these languages [6]. Statistical methods were
employed to determine the frequency of different
stress patterns in various discourse types [7]. The study
also included a perception-based experiment to
evaluate how native speakers interpret stress shifts in
different communicative contexts [5]. Additionally,
sociolinguistic interviews were conducted to assess
how speakers perceive the role of stress in expressing
emotions, politeness, and authority [8].
RESULTS
Accentuation in Uzbek. Uzbek, a stress-final language,
generally places primary stress on the last syllable of
words [4]. However, stress variation occurs in
borrowed words and emphatic speech [6]. The stress
pattern affects semantic interpretation, influencing
formal and informal discourse styles [2]. Historical
influences from Persian and Russian have introduced
phonetic variations, leading to subtle shifts in prosody
[3]. Furthermore, the stress placement in Uzbek affects
syntactic structures, particularly in question formation
and sentence emphasis [7]. The analysis also indicates
that dialectal differences within Uzbek contribute to
minor variations in stress placement, particularly in
regional speech communities where phonetic
influences from neighboring languages are stronger
[5]. Additionally, Uzbek speakers use stress modulation
to highlight emotional intensity, which is often
observed in poetry and public speeches [8].
Accentuation in Turkish
Turkish follows a more flexible stress system, with
stress typically occurring on the last syllable of native
words but shifting in compounds and certain
suffixations [1]. Stress placement in Turkish also carries
pragmatic weight, affecting politeness strategies and
speaker intent [4]. Additionally, Ottoman Turkish had a
more variable stress system, which evolved into the
modern standardized patterns observed today [3]. In
contemporary Turkish, stress can be used to
differentiate between lexical categories, such as nouns
and verbs, further highlighting its linguistic significance
[5]. The study also finds that stress shifts in Turkish often
correspond to syntactic boundaries and play a role in
discourse-level intonation patterns [7]. Furthermore,
regional dialects of Turkish exhibit slight variations in
stress placement, particularly in Anatolian Turkish,
where stress modulation is more prominent in
conversational speech [8].
Comparative Analysis
Both languages exhibit stress-final tendencies but differ
in their stress flexibility [6]. While Uzbek maintains a
rigid final stress rule, Turkish allows variations based on
morphological and pragmatic factors [2]. These
differences reflect underlying cultural attitudes toward
formality, emphasis, and expressivity [3]. Moreover,
stress variation in Uzbek is largely influenced by lexical
borrowing, while in Turkish, it is more influenced by
syntactic and morphological structures [5]. Additionally,
stress shifts in Turkish serve as a tool for emotional and
rhetorical expression, whereas in Uzbek, stress is more
systematically bound to phonological constraints [7].
Further analysis reveals that the adaptability of stress
placement in Turkish enables speakers to use prosody
as a means of nuanced social signaling, while Uzbek
retains a more rigid structure that prioritizes
phonological clarity over expressive flexibility [4].
Additionally, the role of stress in humor and irony is
observed more prominently in Turkish than in Uzbek,
where tonal shifts often accompany pragmatic meaning
shifts [8].
DISCUSSION
The findings suggest that accentual patterns in Uzbek
and Turkish align with broader axiological structures [3].
The strict final stress rule in Uzbek may be associated
with a preference for structural consistency, whereas
the variability in Turkish stress placement suggests a
more dynamic approach to meaning modulation [1].
From an axiolinguistic perspective, these patterns
indicate
distinct
communicative
priorities
and
sociolinguistic tendencies [6]. Furthermore, the
presence of stress variation in borrowed words
highlights the interaction between language contact
and phonetic adaptation [5].
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the significance of accentual
features in the linguistic and cultural frameworks of
Uzbek and Turkish [2]. The comparative analysis reveals
that stress patterns serve not only as phonological
markers but also as indicators of sociocultural values [4].
The diachronic perspective provides insights into the
evolution of stress in these languages, demonstrating
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
63
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
the interplay between historical influences and
linguistic adaptation [3]. Future research may expand
on these findings by incorporating experimental
phonetic analyses and exploring the role of stress in
other Turkic languages [7].
REFERENCES
Johanson, L. (1998). "The Structure of Turkic
Languages." Routledge.
Comrie, B. (1981). "The Languages of the Soviet
Union." Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, G. (2002). "The Turkish Language Reform: A
Catastrophic Success." Oxford University Press.
Van der Hulst, H. (1999). "Word Prosodic Systems in
the Languages of Europe." Mouton de Gruyter.
Beckman, M. E. (1986). "Stress and Non-Stress
Accent." Foris Publications.
Boersma, P., & Hamann, S. (2009). "Phonetic and
Phonological Perception in Language Learning."
Palgrave Macmillan.
Underhill, R. (1976). "Turkish Grammar." MIT Press.
Yavaş, M. (2011). "Applied Turkish Phonetics." John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
