Authors

  • Gulchexra Holikulova
    predicative relation, object relation, case relation, attributive relation.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.ijai.114454

Abstract

In this article, we will talk about the predicative relation, the object relation, the case relation, and the attributive relation. The article analyzes whether the connecting links of the subordinate and ruling parts change the types of relations.

 

 

background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 109

SYNTACTICAL CONNECTION OF WORDS

Gulchexra Holikulova

Assistant teacher, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages

Annotation:

In this article, we will talk about the predicative relation, the object relation, the

case relation, and the attributive relation. The article analyzes whether the connecting links of

the subordinate and ruling parts change the types of relations.

Key words:

predicative relation, object relation, case relation, attributive relation.

In the grammatical section of linguistics, the term connection is widely used. It is mainly

seen in cases where words and word forms are connected to each other in form, and in content,

a word or sentence.

Connections can take different forms depending on their specific characteristics. In

particular, syntactic connection includes types such as semantic, structural or connected, free

connection. In this section, we will focus on syntactic connection. In connection, we mainly

refer to formal means (including intonation) that serve to introduce into communication.

In our Uzbek linguistics, the relations between words that enter into syntactic

communication in the section of syntax are being widely organized. First of all, syntactic

communication and syntactic relation are different from each other. We need to touch on the

grammatical means that connect the subordinate and dominant parts in word combinations. If

we take the conjunctions as the means that connect the subordinate word to the dominant word

in word combinations, they are connected by the same grammatical means. As we said above,

in the example of conjunctions between subordinate and dominant parts, we see: institutdan

qaytdi, shahardan qaytdi, ukasidan oldi, ustozdan so

‘

radi, kitobdan ko

‘

chirdi, kasalligidan

kelmadi, ertalabdan keldi, yozdan beri kelyapti. We will analyze these examples below. In the

word combinations in the examples given here, the case "chiqish" serves to connect the subject

and the dominant part. If we analyze it from the syntactic perspective, in the combinations

"institutdan va shahardan qaytdi" the words "shahardan" function as the case of the subject, in

the combinations "akasidan" and "ustozidan" the words "from the brother" and "from the

teacher" function as the complement, in the combination "from the brother" and "from the

teacher" the words "from the teacher" function as the case of the subject, in the combination

"from the disease" and "from the disease" the word "from the disease" functions as the case of

the subject, in the combinations "from the morning" and "from the summer" the words "from

the morning" and "from the summer" function as the case of the subject. Based on these

analyses, the means of forming subordination and dominance between words that enter into

syntactic relations, even though they are expressed in the same form, perform different

functions in the syntactic relationship. For example, they perform the function of complement,

case, tense, and causative.


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 110

The most important relations between words that enter into syntactic relations are the

following:

1. Predicative relation. In this case, the possessive word enters into a syntactic relationship

with the participle word. The possessive word agrees with the participle in person and number

using grammatical means. For example, biz bordik, talabalar kelishdi, men ko

’

rdim, u tingladi.

2. Object relationship. In this case, the complementizer is connected to the word that acts as

the complementizer. The complementizer and the complement enter into syntactic relations

using inflections, conjunctions, adverbs, and auxiliary verbs. For example, kitobni o

’

qimoq, uni

chaqirmoq, daftarga yozmoq, onasiga aytmoq, opasidan so

‘

ramoq, dugonasida ko

‘

rmoq, ukasi

uchun olmoq, onasi bilan bormoq...

3. Relationship with modifier. This is where a word in the case function comes into contact

with a word in the conjugated function. In this process, case and conjugated form a syntactic

relationship using conjunctions, adverbs, conjunctions, and auxiliaries. For example, darsdan

qaytmoq, ko

‘

chaga chiqmoq, yozda bormoq, yozdan beri o

‘

qimoq, zavq bilan gapirmoq,

e

’

tibor bilan kuzatmoq ...

4. Attributive relation. A word in the function of a determiner is connected to a word in the

function of a defined. In this case, the determiner and the defined are connected to a syntactic

relationship using accusative case and intonation. For example, moviy osmon, toza havo, ko

’

m-

ko

’

k dala, mening hovlim, bizning darsxonamiz ...

It should be noted that in some cases, the means connecting the subordinate and dominant

parts change the above types of relations. For example, the auxiliary with, mainly creates an

object relation: to come with his brother, to go by car... there are cases when these means also

serve to create a conditional relation: qunt bilan o'qimoq, zavq bilan tinglamoq, etc.

When we touch on syntactic relations, of course, we must also express an opinion about

syntactic relations. In linguistics, it is also stated that syntactic relations and syntactic relations

are not the same concept, but one requires the other.

In the second volume of the two-volume academic edition of the Uzbek language grammar,

the following opinions are expressed about syntactic relations and syntactic relations, their

types: instead of the term syntactic relations, they use the term syntactic relations, or they use

these two terms interchangeably, without distinguishing them from each other. As a result, it

can be concluded that both of these terms reflect the same thing. It is true that syntactic

connection and syntactic relation are related to each other: where there is a syntactic connection,

there is also a syntactic relation. But this does not allow us to evaluate them as the same thing.

Any syntactic connection is different from a syntactic relation.

Syntactic connection, as we said above, means the grammatical connection of words in a

word combination and a sentence, and sentences in speech. Syntactic relation, on the other hand,

indicates the grammatical meaning and function in which words in a word combination and a

sentence, and sentences in speech are used in relation to each other.

B. Orinboev In the textbook of the current Uzbek literary language, syntactic relations are


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 111

expressed using: Syntactic relation and syntactic relations. Although syntactic relation and

syntactic relation are two sides of a phenomenon that require each other, both of them do not

necessarily correspond to each other due to their certain specificity. For example, some people

have the opinion that vocative and modal relations, which are part of syntactic relations, do not

belong to syntactic relations [5; 86-b].

Therefore, when determining the type of syntactic relations, the necessary factors that we

pay attention to, along with the means that connect words, should also be taken into account the

lexical-semantic properties of the elements that enter into the connection.

References:

1. G

‘

ulomov A., Asqarova M. Hozirgi o

‘

zbek adabiy tili. Sintaksis. Toshkent, 1987.

2. Berdialiyev A. O

‘

zbek tili ergash gapli qo

‘

shma gaplarida sintaktik aloqa va sintaktik

munosabatlar. Toshkent, 1992.

3. Mahmudov N., Nurmonov A. O

‘

zbek tilining nazariy grammatikasi. Toshkent, 1995, 21-

bet.

4. O

‘

rinboyev B., Hozirgi o

‘

zbek adabiy tili so

‘

z birikmasi va sodda gap sintaksisidan

leksiyalar. Toshkent, 1990, 86-bet.

5. Nurmonov A. Va boshqalar. O

‘

zbek tilining mazmuniy sintaksisi. Toshkent, 1992, 94-bet.

References

Gulomov A., Asqarova M. Hozirgi ozbek adabiy tili. Sintaksis. Toshkent, 1987.

Berdialiyev A. Ozbek tili ergash gapli qoshma gaplarida sintaktik aloqa va sintaktik munosabatlar. Toshkent, 1992.

Mahmudov N., Nurmonov A. Ozbek tilining nazariy grammatikasi.Toshkent, 1995, 21-bet.

Orinboyev B., Hozirgi ozbek adabiy tili soz birikmasi va sodda gap sintaksisidan leksiyalar. Toshkent, 1990, 86-bet.

Nurmonov A. Va boshqalar. Ozbek tilining mazmuniy sintaksisi. Toshkent, 1992, 94-bet.