Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika –
Зарубежная лингвистика и
лингводидактика – Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Categorical features of aspectuality in English and Uzbek
languages
Mukhayyo DAVLATOVA
1
Bukhara State Medical Institute
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received September 2024
Received in revised form
10 October 2024
Accepted 25 October 2024
Available online
15 November 2024
This article interprets "aspectually significant words" based
on the compatibility of differential semantic features within the
aspect category system. It examines sentences that display all
their properties in interaction with context, as well as the
grammatical category, functional-semantic field, and sets of
interrelated linguistic elements. By broadly understanding
aspectuality as a functional-semantic field, the study integrates
multi-level linguistic tools for expressing aspectual semantics.
Dynamism emerges as one of these tools, albeit peripheral,
thereby ensuring a comprehensive understanding of
aspectuality. The central theoretical concept of this research is
considered to be the notion of a functional-semantic category. In
contemporary linguistic studies, this category is utilized to
denote phenomena that encompass lexical, grammatical,
semantic, and syntactic levels.
2181-3701/© 2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss6-pp134-139
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
aspectual categories,
stative,
dynamic,
durativity,
boundedness and
unboundedness,
aspect,
aktionsart,
compositional.
Ingliz va o‘zbek tillarida aspektuallikni kategorial
xususiyatlari
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar:
aspektual kategotriyalar,
statik,
dinamik,
davomiylik,
chegaralanganlik va
chegaralanmaganlik,
aspekt,
aksionsart,
kompozitsional.
Ushbu maqolada aspekt kategoriyasi tizimidagi differensial
semantik xususiyatlarning tarkibini muvofiqligi bo‘yicha
“aspektual jihatdan muhim so‘zlar” talqini va kontekst bilan
o‘zaro ta’sirda o‘zining barcha xususiyatlarini namoyon
qiladigan gap hamda grammatik kategoriya, funksional-
semantik maydon va o‘zaro lingvistik elementlar to‘plami talqin
etiladi. Aspektuallikni funksional-semantik maydon sifatida keng
1
PhD in Philological Sciences, Associate Professor Head of the Department of English, Bukhara State Medical Institute.
E-mail: hasanovnamuxa@gmail.com
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
135
tushunish bilan, aspektual semantikani ifodalashning ko‘p
darajali lingvistik vositalarini birlashtiradi. Dinamiklik ushbu
vositalardan biri bo‘lib chiqadi, juda periferik. Ya’ni,
aspektuallikni keng tushunishni ta’minlaydi. Ushbu tadqiqotimiz
markaziy nazariy tushuncha funksional-semаntik kategoriya
tushunchasi sanaladi. Zamonaviy lingvistik tadqiqotlarda ushbu
kategoriya leksik, grammatik, semantik, sintaktik sathlarni
umumlashtiruvchi hodisalarni anglatishda qo‘llaniladi.
Категориальные признаки аспектуальности в английском и
узбекском языках
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
видовые категории,
синтаксические уровни,
статическая динамика,
длительность,
ограниченность и
неограниченность,
аспект,
искусство действия,
композиционность.
В данной статье проводится анализ дифференциально-
семантических признаков в системе видовых категорий,
рассматривается совместимость толкования «аспектно
важных слов» с предложениями, проявляющими свои
особенности во взаимодействии с контекстом. Особое
внимание уделяется грамматической интерпретации
категории, функционально-семантическому полю и набору
межъязыковых элементов. При расширенном понимании
аспектуальности как функционально-семантического поля,
она объединяет многоуровневые лингвистические средства
выражения видовой семантики. Одним из инструментов
выражения такой семантики является динамика, которая,
хотя и занимает второстепенную роль, способствует
широкому пониманию аспектуальности. Центральным
теоретическим
понятием
исследования
является
функционально-семантическая категория. В современных
лингвистических работах под этим термином понимаются
явления, объединяющие лексический, грамматический,
семантический и синтаксический уровни языка.
INTRODUCTION
Linguists specializing in the study of aspectual meanings typically classify verbs into
stative and dynamic groups. The general approach to distinguishing static and dynamic
verbs relies on similar methodologies. However, this approach may not yield consistent
results when analyzing verb systems across different languages. For example, in some
languages, verbs denoting states and entering states are represented by distinct lexemes
(e.g., English and Russian), while in other languages, such as Uzbek, these two meanings
are encapsulated within a single lexeme. In Uzbek, the distinction between state and state
transition is determined by auxiliary verbs or context.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The English aspectologist B. Comrie categorizes verbs based on their lexical
properties, such as punctuality, durativity, boundedness/unboundedness (telic/atelic),
stativity, and dynamicity (B. Comrie, 1976, p. 41). Similarly, B. Kortmann applies the TAA
(tense-aspect-aktionsart) triad to analyze the English verb system. The primary goal of this
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
136
triad is to delineate the boundaries between aspect and tense, as well as aspect and
aktionsart. Aspect relates to the situation and reflects whether it is static or dynamic,
completed or ongoing essentially, a situation that is either "concluded" or "existing" at a
given time (B. Kortmann, 1985).
Aktionsart pertains to the semantics of verbs and predicates and is associated with
temporal features. Hence, aktionsart is considered compositional, encompassing entire
sentences and sometimes the pragmatic properties of subordinate clauses (Verkuyl, 1972;
Declerck, 1979, p. 764; Brinton, 1988, p. 31).
The semantics of verbs interact with all linguistic means in syntactic-semantic
relationships. All words and syntactic tools surrounding a verb reveal its meanings in real-
world contexts. As T. Layfrink noted, no word in a natural language function in isolation; it
is always used about other words in a text (T. Layfrink, 1972, p. 8). Each lexical unit
changes categorical meaning at the syntactic level, enriching its lexical-semantic meanings.
Words and phrases exhibit an increasing degree of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
differentiation in discourse.
Uzbek linguists R. Rasulov and S. Mukhamedova emphasize that the meaning of a
word consists of logical components. Understanding a word’s semantic structure involves
identifying its logical segments, defining the types of components, and examining their
interrelations to uncover the logical connections between meanings (R. Rasulov,
S. Mukhamedova, 2002, pp. 26–29). Words’ lexical meanings are also determined through
their referential relations, allowing for grouping based on meaning. Such classification aids
in distinguishing words’ opposing features, referential relations, and grammatical class
affiliations.
Verb structure plays a key role in uncovering meaning content and situational
realization, particularly in aspectual meanings. Linguists increasingly focus on the
semantic classification of predicates to address aspectual issues. The diversity of
predicates stems from their combination with tense and aspect markers. Aspectual
meanings are studied at various levels, including grammatical categories, lexical
categories, field theory (e.g., functional-semantic fields), and are classified through lexical,
semantic, and grammatical groupings.
However, these classifications may not consistently reveal the essence of the matter
across all languages. For instance, approaches that work well for one language’s structure
may not suit another. Recent studies explore aspectuality from cognitive (e.g.,
R. Langacker, 1999; T.V. Beloshapkova, 2008; G. Mirsanov, 2009), discursive (M. Bittner,
2007), and pragmatic perspectives (G. Mirsanov, 2020). Cognitive studies clarify
conceptual frameworks, frames, and prototypes of aspectuality, while discourse studies
focus on expressing aspectual content. Pragmatic research examines how referential units’
aspectual semantics influence communication and how aspectual meanings manifest in
this process.
The term “aspect” is now more commonly used than “vid” in modern linguistics,
making it appropriate for this context. In Slavic languages, grammatical markers establish
aspectual oppositions. In English and other Germanic languages, aspectual semantics is
shaped by selecting predicative features (e.g., imperfective phenomena) (Comrie, 1976).
Logical approaches increasingly guide aspectual studies. For instance, E. Paducheva’s
“observer’s figure” theory suggests that situations evolve and can encompass various stages
along the time axis (E. Paducheva, 1996; 2010). Observation fragments during this process
form primary or linear aspectual meanings (Plungyan, 2011).
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
137
T.G. Akimova’s research (1984) examines the relationship between semantic
features of tense-aspect systems, particularly in English. She identifies several semantic
features:
1.
Directedness or non-directedness toward a boundary.
2.
Completion or non-completion of an action.
3.
Stability or dynamicity of an action.
4.
Resultativity.
5.
Generalization of fact.
6.
Localization or non-localization of an action at a specific time.
7.
Dependency or independence of an action on external factors.
These classifications emphasize English verbs’ specific features and rely on
aktionsart theories as interpreted by Russian linguists. The grammatical nature of English
verbs’ aspectual categories is evident in their analytic forms, as highlighted by I.P. Ivanova
(1961, p. 180).
Subsequent aspectual studies, such as those by Z. Vendler and K. Smith, rely on
compositionality theories, with notable contributions from S.G. Tatevosov in Russian
linguistics. These studies examine the interplay between lexical semantics and aspect,
proposing a unified understanding of how grammatical markers correspond to lexical
meanings in different contexts.
The next stage of works in the field of aspectuality is based on Z. Vendler and
K. Smith's compositionality theory, with S.G. Tatevosov’s works being notable in Russian
linguistics [Tatevosov 2005]. Furthermore, in analyzing the relationship between the
(lexical) semantics of verbs and aspect, S.G. Tatevosov refers to the works of F. Antinucci,
L. Gebert, and S. Karolak [Antinucci, Gebert 1976; Gebert 1997; Karolak 1995].
Within this research framework, it is proposed to consider the components
corresponding to the aspect in the sense of combining the lexical semantics of verbs with
their aspectual characteristics, grammatical categorical markers of various compositional
structures, and the consistency of these elements with their lexical meanings. These
components are viewed as one type of context for the grammatical category (GC) aspect –
its internal context – by comparing it with other types of contexts in terms of the
significance of the verb category's functioning. Specifically, the aspectual characteristic of
a verb lexeme (or the "portrait" of its dynamics), as well as the taxonomy of dynamics
existing in a given language, are comparatively interpreted as parameters that significantly
influence the functioning of aspectual grammemes within the language system.
The relationships between semantically close concepts such as aspectuality,
dynamics, and stativity play an essential role. The first point to emphasize is their
specificity, which is analyzed within the scope of potential interpretations of aspectuality.
A narrow understanding of aspectuality sees it as part of the grammatical system of
a language, including grammatical oppositions with aspectual semantics (one or several),
represented as the relevant aspectual characteristics of lexemes. A broader understanding
of aspectuality as a functional-semantic field integrates multi-level linguistic means of
expressing aspectual semantics. Dynamics is one such means, although a highly peripheral
one. This broader understanding ensures a comprehensive view of aspectuality.
Z. Vendler identified semantic predicate classes (States, e.g.,
know, love
;
Achievements, e.g.,
find the key, reach the top
; Accomplishments, e.g.,
get up, write a letter
;
Activities, e.g.,
run, push a cart
) by employing two successive "distinguishing procedures":
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
138
testing the possibility of using a verb in the progressive form and its compatibility with
temporally inclusive states (time intervals bounded on both sides).
In defining a grammatical category through a structural approach [Plungyan 2011],
the semantic features of its elements take a backseat, essentially being the result of formal
characteristics displayed by these elements. The primary feature that defines the
categorical nature of a linguistic phenomenon is the mutual exclusivity of its elements (also
referred to as paradigmaticity or categoriality).
CONCLUSION
The term "aspect" is often associated with the concept of perfective and imperfective
verbs. We adhere to the viewpoint that these two terms are antonyms.
The term "aspect" is more widely used in modern linguistics, and therefore we use this
term within the scope of this work. The established concept of aspect will not be applied
further to describe the aspect category in Slavic-type languages, where binary aspectual
oppositions are present.
In the functional-semantic field, the primary aspectual meanings are usually
classified as follows: the preparatory state before the situation, expressed by prospective
structures; the moment of transition from one state to another when the situation occurs,
expressed by inceptive structures; the intermediate stage between the beginning and end
of the situation, expressed by progressive structures; the momentary stage of transition to
a state at the end of the situation, expressed by completive grammemes; and finally, the
state following the completion of the situation, represented by resultative structures.
It should be noted that not every situation can include all the stages mentioned
above, primarily due to the lexical semantics of the predicate, i.e., its action class
(processes, events, states, etc.). Thus, the intermediate stage meaning may only be
characteristic of processes, as events, due to their semantics, are instantaneous and lack
duration. In state semantics, the intermediate stage is indistinguishable from the initial
and final stages, rendering aspectual semantic analysis less significant for them. However,
in some languages, aspectual structures often have a broader meaning, encompassing
stative predicates representing states. In this sense, the term "durative" is commonly used
in typological literature.
A similar situation arises with resultative structures: defining a state resulting from
natural completion can only describe verbs of a specific action class. In English and Uzbek,
resultative markers are also associated with other action classes of verbs. The
development of state-change semantic meaning is acknowledged to be related to perfect
markers.
REFERENCES:
1.
Васильев Л.М. Форма и содержание языка как знаковой системы // Вестник
ВЭГУ: педагогика. Уфа, 1996, 3 : 39-42.
2.
Problemy funktsional'noi grammatiki. Polevye struktury.Russian Edition | by Ed.
by A.V. Bondarko et al | Jan 1, 2005
3.
Brosig B. Depictives and resultatives in modern khalkh Mongolian // Hokkaidō
4.
Gengo bunka kenkyū.2009. No. 7.–P. 71–101.
5.
Bybee J. L., R. Perkins, W. Pagliuca.The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and
modality in the languages of the world. –Chicago: The U. of Chicago Press, 1994. Carrier J.,
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
139
RandallJ.H., The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives //Linguistic
Inquiry 23, 1992. –Р. 173-234.
6.
Goldberg A.Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. L. – Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995. –265 p. Davlatova, M. H.
Relation of the lexical-semantic structure of verbs in the linguistic essence. IEJRD-
International Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(5).
7.
Ризаев Б. Х. К проблеме лимитативно нейтральных глаголов современного
немецкого языка. // Лингвистические исследования: Аспекты грамматического
анализа. – М., 1990. – С. 131-140.
8.
Сайфуллаева Р. Р., Менглиев Б.Р., Боқиева Г.Ҳ., Қурбонова М.М., Юнусова З. Ҳ.,
Абузалова М. Қ. Ҳозирги ўзбек адабий тили. – Т.: Фан ва технология, 2010. – 404 б.
9.
Сафаров
Ш.
Прагмалингвистика.
–
Т.:
«Ўзбекистон
миллий
энциклопедияси», 2008. – 286 б.
10.
Сафаров Ш. Семантика. – Т.: «Ўзбекистон миллий энциклопедияси», 2013. – 341 б.
11.
Сичинава Д. В. Связь между формой и семантикой перфекта: одна
неизученная закономерность // А. В. Бондарко и др. (ред.). Динамические модели:
Слово. Предложение. Текст. Сб. статей в честь Е. В. Падучевой. М.: Языки славянских
культур, 2008. –С. 711–749.
12.
Сулейманова Н. Ж., Локатив категориясининг синтактик семантик ва дейктик
хусусиятлари. Филол.бўйич фалсафа фан.док.дисс.автореферати. Т., 2018. 21б.
13.
Hasanovna, D. M. (2021). Linguistic and cognitive features of performing
effective actions. World Bulletin of Social Sciences, 3(10), 41-44.
14.
Davlatova, M. X. (2018). RABOTA NAD VIDEOTEKSTOM NA ZANYaTIYaX
ANGLIYSKOGO YaZЫKA. Teoriya i praktika sovremennoy nauki, (4), 242-246.
15.
Davlatova, M. (2020). ASPECTUAL AND LEXICO-SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF
VERBS. So‘z san’ati xalqaro jurnali, 1.
16.
Hasanovna, D. M. (2021). DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF RESULTATIVE STRUCTURES
ACCORDING TO THEIR LINGUISTIC ESSENCE. Academicia Globe: Inderscience Research,
2(05), 475-479.
17.
Hasanovna, D. M. (2022). Aspectual and lexical-semantic classification of verbs.
JournalNX-A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, 8(2), 116-121.
18.
Shadmanov, K. B., Davlatova, M. H., Ostonova, S. N., & Radjabova, A. T. (2020).
ENGLISH RENAISSANCE: TRANSFORMATION OF 61 PHILOSOPHY UNDERSTANDING AS A
FACTOR OF INFORMATION CULTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPOCH. Cross-Cultural
Studies: Education and Science, 5(1), 61-67.
19.
Davlatova, M. X. Rabota nad videotekstam na zanyatiyax Angliyskogo yazыka.
Teoriya i praktika sovremennoy nauki, 242-246.
