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 425
SOME REMARKS ON NEW APPROACHES TO THE SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS
OF THE SENTENCE
Tuychiev Sokhibjon Erkinovich
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages, Samarkand, Uzbekistan
Abstract.
This article is called some comments on new approaches to the syntactic analysis of
the sentence and aims to highlight the specific features of the traditional and modern methods
of analysis of the linguistic units involved in the structure of the sentence. The opinions of a
number of international and Uzbek linguists on the analysis of sentence fragments are also
presented.
Key words
: syntax, method, syntactic analysis, componential analysis, parts of sentence,
sentence structure, language unit.
1.
Introduction
In modern linguistics, several linguistic research methods are employed for analyzing sentence
structures, including distributional analysis, immediate constituent analysis, transformational
analysis, statistical analysis, comparative-functional analysis, and componential and syntactic
modeling approaches
.
The selection of an appropriate method depends on the research object,
and an effective application of these methods allows researchers to achieve significant and
productive results in the field. Therefore, utilizing linguistic research methods efficiently
requires a high level of scholarly expertise.
Literature Review
Approaches to syntactic analysis have long been a focal point for many linguists. Scholars such
as Sh. Safarov, T. Bushuy, U. Usmonov, N. Turniyazov, F. Buslayev
,
and others have
contributed to the study of these methods. Similarly, English linguists such as Y. Curme, R.
Zandvoort, R. Kempson, and P. Roberts have provided insightful analyses with illustrative
examples in their research.
2.
Material and Methods
Proper application of linguistic methods in research is crucial for distinguishing linguistic levels
and identifying their interrelationships. For instance, in distributional analysis
,
linguists
emphasize three key aspects:
1.
Complementary or supplementary distribution
2.
Contrastive distribution [1]
3.
Free alternation distribution [2]
A fourth aspect of distributional analysis has also been incorporated into sentence analysis [3].
Analysis and Results
It is important to note that distributional analysis is primarily applied at the morphological level
of language. However, at the syntactic level, instead of focusing on the arrangement of
individual word forms within a sentence, the characteristics of entire groups are analyzed. This
approach necessitates preliminary data processing by the researcher.
In contemporary linguistics, syntactic modeling methods such as componential and
syntagmemic analysis are widely used to determine the placement of syntactic units within
sentence structures. When applying immediate constituent analysis
,
sentence analysis typically
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 426
begins at the syntactic level and progresses to the morphological level. However, this method
proves inadequate in identifying the semantic fields of coordinated sentence elements. Instead,
it is useful for modeling the morphological features of sentence components by breaking them
down into the largest and smallest constituents, thereby describing their external structures.
Linguists hold divergent perspectives on traditional syntactic analysis. Some scholars argue that
sentence structure should be analyzed by distinguishing only the subject, while incorporating all
other elements into the predicate.
For example, H. Wijk analyzes the sentence “The reporter gave the lady a present” by
classifying “The reporter: as the subject
,
and
“
gave the lady a present” as the predicate
,
further
breaking it down into “the lady” (inner complement) and “a present” (outer complement) [4]. P.
Roberts
,
on the other hand, models sentence structure based on the morphological
representation of lexical units [5].
Another group of linguists recognizes only primary sentence components, categorizing
secondary elements as modifiers
,
which are further divided morphologically as follows:
a) Attributive modifiers – adjectives modifying a noun or pronoun
b) Objective modifiers – modifying a verb, adjective, or adverb
c) Adverbial modifiers – modifying a verb, adjective, or another adverb [6]
Meanwhile, R. Zandvoort classifies secondary sentence components as “adverbial adjuncts” [7].
These varying perspectives highlight the controversy surrounding the classification of
secondary sentence elements
,
particularly in Russian linguistics, where two primary approaches
are observed:
1.
Logical-grammatical principles
,
which rely on semantic interpretation and syntactic
relations [8].
2.
Morphological representation
,
where word classes determine sentence components [9].
Some linguistic philosophers advocate using “subject” instead of “subject noun”, and
“predicate” instead of “verb phrase” for syntactic analysis [10].
N. Kh. Turniyazov
asserts that
subject and predicate concepts are essentially logical categories
,
and secondary sentence
components such as complements, attributes, and adverbials are not purely grammatical but
semantic in nature [11].
Despite these theoretical contributions to syntax, it remains evident that the principles for
distinguishing primary and secondary sentence components, along with the linguistic
methodologies for their analysis, are not yet fully established
.
Some scholars argue that the
traditional classification of complements, attributes, and adverbials forces sentence structure
into artificial schematization
,
necessitating a re-evaluation of secondary sentence components
[12].
Based on the diverse approaches to sentence analysis, it can be concluded that morphological
and syntactic features of each sentence component should be thoroughly examined—including
the word class it belongs to, its form, its syntactic relationship with other components, and its
semantic field within the syntactic structure
.
Among the linguistic research methods, comparative linguistics is an independent field that
allows for the cross-linguistic analysis of both related and unrelated language systems
.
Given
the focus of this study, we will limit our discussion to the comparative-functional analysis of
coordinated elements in unrelated languages such as English and Uzbek
.
According to J. Buranov
,
linguistic typology is divided into four main categories:
a) Genetic typology
b) Areal typology
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 427
c) Comparative typology
d) Structural typology [13]
Linguistic typology considers both formal (structural) and semantic aspects of language. B. A.
Uspensky states that typological research aims to identify universal linguistic features across
different languages [14].
In comparative analysis, this approach helps identify numerous differential features, and it is
advisable to systematically differentiate linguistic levels during the syntagmatic and
paradigmatic segmentation of the research object.
The fundamental syntactic units in syntactic typology include words, phrases, and sentence
structures
.
It is generally more effective to compare word combinations or sentence structures
rather than individual words
.
A review of the development of comparative linguistics in Uzbekistan reveals that significant
progress has been made in studying English-Uzbek, English-Karakalpak, German-Uzbek,
English-Uzbek-Russian, and German-Uzbek-Russian linguistic comparisons. J. Buranov has
contributed substantially to the theoretical foundations of comparative linguistics
.
These findings suggest that comparative linguistic research serves both theoretical and practical
purposes by establishing connections between linguistic theory and practice. Moreover,
comparative studies help identify similarities and differences between a native language and a
foreign language, facilitating deeper understanding and learning.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The application of linguistic methods in sentence analysis offers several advantages:
1.
It allows for the study of the structural and semantic characteristics of syntactic units.
2.
It provides a foundation for syntactic and semantic classifications of sentences.
3.
It enables the systematic study of syntactic relationships at the sentence level.
4.
It facilitates the use of modeling and experimental observation methods
.
Thus, the identification of syntactic structures, their interrelations, and their paradigmatic
characteristics plays a crucial role in comparative-functional research on coordinated sentence
components in typologically different languages.
Failure to adhere to these systematic principles may lead
to
incomplete or inaccurate
interpretations of the selected research object.
References:
1. Бушуй Т., Сафаров Ш. Тил қурилиши: таҳлил методлари ва методологияси.–Тошкент:
Фан, 2007.–274 б.
2. Буранов Дж. Сравнительная тинология английского и тюрских языков. Москва:
Наука, 1983.-268 с.
3. Усмонов У.У. Гап таҳлилига янгича ёндашув//халқаро илмий–анжуман
материаллари. СамДЧТИнинг 10 йиллигига бағишланади.–Самарқанд: СамДЧТИ
нашри, 2004.–Б–105–107.
4. Whitehall H. Structural Essentials of English. New-York: 1996.-394 p.
5. Roberts P. English Syntax: A programmed instructionto transformational Grammar: New-
York: Horcourt, Brace and World; 2008,-524 p.
6. Curme Y.O. A Grammar of the English Language.vol.2-3 London- New-York, 2006,-240 p.
7. Zandvoort R.W. A Handbook of English Grammar. Cronin-gen, 1998.-436p.
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 428
8. Буслаев Ф.И. Историческая грамматика русского языка.-Москва: Учпедгаз, 1968.-623
с.
9. Пешковский А.М. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении. Москва: Наука.2006.-
467 с.
10. Kempson R.M. Sematic Theory. Cambridge University Press: 2007.-440 p.
11. Турниёзов Н.Қ. Гап ва унинг лингвистик табиати ҳақида баъзи мулоҳазалар//Тил ва
жамият маданий мулоқотлар. Республика илмий-амалий анжумани материаллари.
Самарқанд, 2013 йил 26-27 апрель, 1-китоб, СамДЧТИ нашри, 2013. –Б. 17-18.
12. Back K., Harris R.M. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge Mass Press,
2008.-484 p.
13. Буранов Дж. Сравнительная тинология английского и тюрских языков. Москва:
Наука, 1983.-268 с.
14. Успенский Б.А. Структурная типология языков. Москва: Наука, 1965.-286 с.
15. Мухин А.М. Структура предложений и их модели. – Ленинград, Ленинград отд.:
Наука, 1968.–230 с.
16. Мухин А.М. Функциональный синтаксис. Функциональная лексикология.
Функциональная морфология –СПБ.: 2007.–198 с.
