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 1155
TYPES OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES AND THEIR MODES OF EXPRESSION IN
FRENCH AND UZBEK
Sayfullayev Bakhshillo Nematulloyevich
Bukhara State University, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
The teacher of the french philology department
b.n.sayfullayev@buxdu .uz
Shahobova Maftuna
4th year student (French language)
Abstract:
This article provides a comparative typological analysis of subordinate clauses in
French and Uzbek, examining their classification, syntactic and semantic roles, and modes of
expression in each language. French, an Indo-European language, primarily uses subordinating
conjunctions (e.g. que, si, parce que, bien que) and relative pronouns (e.g. qui, que) to introduce
subordinate clauses, including complement clauses, relative clauses, and various adverbial
clauses. Uzbek, a Turkic language, employs markedly different strategies: instead of a
generalized complementizer like que, it relies on non-finite verb forms (participles, converbs,
and nominalized verbs) and a set of subordinating elements (e.g. agar ‘if’, chunki ‘because’,
garchi ‘although’) to convey subordinate relationships. The syntactic behavior and semantic
functions of these structures are analyzed with illustrative examples. We discuss how certain
French subordinators arose via grammaticalization of prepositional phrases, and how Uzbek
connective strategies have been influenced by morphological processes and contact (e.g.
Persian loans like agar, chunki. Cross-linguistic comparison reveals substantial differences that
pose challenges for translation: for instance, a French clause introduced by que (“that”) may
correspond to an Uzbek nominalized clause or participial phrase. By drawing on linguistic
literature and examples, the article highlights how each language’s typological profile shapes its
system of subordination and discusses implications for linguistic theory and translation practice.
Keywords:
text, author's speech, morphological device, syntactic device, narrative indirect
speech.
Introduction
Complex sentences in both French and Uzbek are formed by combining an independent
main clause with one or more subordinate clauses (also called dependent clauses). A
subordinate clause is one that cannot stand alone and depends on a main clause for its full
interpretation. Such clauses fulfill various syntactic roles (like noun clauses acting as objects,
relative clauses modifying nouns, or adverbial clauses indicating time, cause, condition, etc.)
and express a range of semantic relations (causality, temporality, purpose, concession,
condition, etc.). This study aims to classify the types of subordinate clauses (“propositions
subordonnées”) in French and Uzbek and analyze how they are structurally and semantically
expressed in each language. French and Uzbek belong to distinct language families (Indo-
European and Turkic, respectively) and have different grammatical architectures: French is
largely analytic with rigid word order and uses conjunctions and relative pronouns to mark
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 1156
subordination, whereas Uzbek is agglutinative with flexible word order and often uses
morphological means (suffixes on verbs, participles, and converbal forms) to link clauses.
These typological differences offer a rich ground for comparison, shedding light on how
languages encode complex propositional relationships in distinct ways.
In what follows, we first outline the typological classification of subordinate clauses in
French, describing their formal markers and functions. Next, we do the same for Uzbek,
highlighting the use of non-finite forms and specialized particles. We then provide a
comparative analysis, including paired examples, to illustrate structural and functional
differences between the two languages. We discuss relevant grammaticalization processes – for
example, the historical development of French conjunctions from Latin sources and the
emergence of Uzbek subordinate connectives through both internal development and Persian
influence – and consider cross-linguistic implications, particularly challenges in translation
between French and Uzbek. Through a well-referenced discussion, this article underscores the
importance of understanding subordination in a cross-linguistic context, both for theoretical
linguistics and practical translation.
Subordination in French: Types and Functions
French subordinate clauses can be categorized into three broad types: complement
(noun) clauses, relative clauses, and adverbial clauses. Each type is characterized by particular
subordinating elements and serves specific syntactic and semantic roles in the sentence. French
subordinate clauses are usually introduced by a subordinating conjunction or a relative pronoun,
and they contain a finite verb (or occasionally a non-finite verb in special constructions). The
subordinate clause is syntactically dependent on the main clause, often functioning as an
obligatory element such as an object or modifier. Below, we discuss each type in turn, with
examples.
Complement (Noun) Clauses:
These subordinate clauses function like nouns, most often as
direct objects of verbs of saying, thinking, perception, etc. They are typically introduced by the
complementizer
que
(“that”). For example, in Les invités pensent
que
le gâteau est délicieux
(“The guests think
that
the cake is delicious”), the clause introduced by
que
is a complement
clause expressing the content of what is thought. Such clauses are also known as propositions
subordonnées complétives. They answer the question quoi? (what?) with respect to the main
verb (les invités pensent
quoi
? – que le gâteau est délicieux). French complement clauses
nearly always use
que
(or variants like
ce que
in certain contexts) as the subordinator. In
indirect yes-no questions,
si
(“if/whether”) serves as the complementizer (e.g. Je me demande
si
elle viendra “I wonder if she will come”). Importantly, French complement clauses are finite;
the verb carries tense and often mood. In certain cases, especially after expressions of doubt,
emotion, or necessity, the verb appears in the subjunctive mood, reflecting the subordinate
clause’s non-assertive or dependent status (e.g. Je veux
qu
’il vienne “I want him to come,”
where vienne is subjunctive). The use of subjunctive is a notable feature of French
subordination, triggered by specific higher predicates or conjunctions, to indicate modality or
attitude. This mood choice has no direct equivalent in Uzbek, as we will see, which can lead to
translation challenges.
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 1157
Relative Clauses:
French relative clauses (propositions subordonnées relatives) modify
a noun (the antecedent) in the main clause, specifying or describing it. They are introduced by
relative pronouns
or
relative adverbs
such as
qui
(who/which),
que
(that/which),
dont
(of
which/whose),
où
(where),
lequel
(which, formal), etc. For example: Les invités ont adoré le
gâteau
que
Fiona a fait (“The guests loved the cake
that
Fiona made”). Here, que Fiona a fait is
a relative clause modifying le gâteau, with que functioning as a relative pronoun referring back
to the cake. The relative pronoun not only links the clause to the noun but also indicates the role
of the antecedent within the subordinate clause (in this case, que acts as the direct object of a
fait). French relative clauses are usually finite and follow the main clause (post-nominal relative
clauses are the norm in French). They are an essential mechanism for embedding descriptive
information. By contrast, as we will explore, Uzbek does not use relative pronouns; it employs
participial phrases to achieve a similar function. This difference can be seen as a typological
distinction: Indo-European languages like French tend to use special pronouns for relativization,
whereas Turkic languages like Uzbek use non-finite verb forms (participles) in an attributive
role.
Adverbial Clauses:
Adverbial subordinate clauses (propositions subordonnées
circonstancielles) express circumstances such as time, cause, purpose, condition, concession,
manner, etc., relative to the main clause. They are introduced by
subordinating conjunctions
(or multi-word conjunctional locutions) that specify the type of relationship. For example, a
temporal clause may be introduced by
quand
or
lorsque
(“when”), a causal clause by
parce
que
or
puisque
(“because/since”), a purpose clause by
pour que
or
afin que
(“so that, in order
that”), a conditional by
si
(“if”), a concessive by
bien que
or
quoique
(“although”), etc.
Adverbial clauses can often be repositioned (initial or final in the sentence) without changing
the core meaning, and a comma is usually written if the adverbial clause comes first. For
instance: Fiona doit retourner au supermarché
parce qu
’elle a oublié d’acheter du lait. (“Fiona
has to go back to the supermarket
because
she forgot to buy milk.”) contains a causal clause
introduced by
parce que
. Similarly, Bien
qu
’elle
ait
dû repartir au supermarché, Fiona a
terminé le dîner à temps. (“Although she had to go back to the store, Fiona finished the dinner
on time.”) is a concessive clause introduced by
bien que
, which notably requires the
subjunctive mood (ait dû). French has a rich inventory of such conjunctions, including simple
conjunctions (e.g. si, quand, comme, car) and compound or locutional conjunctions (e.g. alors
que “whereas/while”, à condition que “provided that”, à moins que “unless”, jusqu’à ce que
“until”, pendant que “while”, etc.). Many of these are products of grammaticalization; for
example,
pour que
comes from pour + que (literally “for that”),
afin que
from à fin que, and
jusqu’à ce que
from jusque à ce que. The structure
parce que
(“because”) originated from Old
French par ce que (literally “by the fact that”), illustrating how a prepositional phrase combined
with the complementizer
que
evolved into a single causal conjunction. In usage, French
adverbial clauses often convey nuanced logical relations; for example,
puisque
(“since”) tends
to introduce a cause assumed to be known or obvious, whereas
parce que
introduces new
information explaining a cause. These subtleties are important in translation, as choosing the
wrong conjunction can slightly alter the pragmatic meaning of a sentence.
Subordination in Uzbek: Types and Functions
Uzbek exhibits a substantially different strategy for forming subordinate clauses,
reflecting its Turkic, agglutinative character. Rather than relying primarily on standalone
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 1158
subordinating conjunctions or complementizers to introduce finite subordinate clauses, Uzbek
tends to use
non-finite verb forms
(such as participles, verbal nouns, and converbs) that attach
to the verb of the subordinate clause. These verb forms often carry suffixes indicating
tense/aspect and sometimes specific subordinate meanings, and they allow the subordinate
clause to function as a nominal or adverbial modifier within the larger sentence. Uzbek does
have some conjunction-like words, including loans from Persian and Arabic, but their role is
more limited compared to the ubiquitous
que/si
in French. In many cases, what would be a full
subordinate clause in French is rendered in Uzbek by a participial phrase or a noun-like clause
with possessive and case suffixes,
without any separate word meaning “that”
. We outline
below the major types of subordinate expressions in Uzbek – complement clauses, relative
clauses, and adverbial clauses – and their typical modes of expression.
Complement Clauses (Content Clauses):
In Uzbek, the equivalent of a French complétive
(“that”-clause) is usually expressed by
nominalization of the verb
in the subordinate clause.
Instead of a complementizer like “que”, Uzbek uses
verbal noun forms
often called factive
nouns or simply nominalized clauses. A verb in the subordinate clause takes a suffix
(commonly -gan for past/perfective, -adigan or -adigan for future/habitual, -yotgan for present
continuous, etc.) to form a participle, and this participle is then treated like a noun: it can take
possessive suffixes to agree with the subject of the subordinate clause, and case endings (like
accusative -ni) to indicate its role in the main clause. For example, consider the sentence
meaning “I understood that the teacher didn’t go.” In Uzbek this can be expressed as:
O‘qituvchining bormaganini tushundim. Here, the verb bormagan (“not having gone”) is a
participle in the perfective (-gan) form, and it carries the third-person possessive suffix -i (with
the genitive subject o‘qituvchining “of the teacher”) and the accusative case -ni, resulting in
bormaganini. This single word encapsulates the meaning “that (the teacher) did not go”.
Literally, the structure can be parsed as “the teacher’s not-having-gone (acc.) I understood.”
The word deb (see below) is
not
used in this case; the nominalized clause itself functions as the
direct object of tushundim (“I understood”). Another example is O‘qituvchining bormagani
aniq, which corresponds to “It is clear that the teacher didn’t go.” Here bormagani (“his/her not
having gone”) is a nominalized subordinate clause functioning as the subject of the copular
sentence (aniq “clear”). Uzbek linguists refer to these nominalized clauses as factive noun
clauses, especially when they report knowledge, perception, or communication verbs. The term
“factive” here indicates that the subordinate clause is treated as a fact or proposition. Crucially,
Uzbek does not ordinarily employ a free-standing complementizer like “that” (French que) in
such sentences – using an explicit complementizer (like Persian ki, see below) is considered
archaic or highly formal. Instead, subordination is indicated by the verb morphology itself. As
one descriptive source succinctly puts it, “In Uzbek, this strategy [of using a conjunction like
‘that’] is not employed outside of artificial and archaic literary language. Instead, Uzbek makes
use of various noun forms derived from the verb of the subordinate clause.”. This reflects a
general Turkic pattern: subordinate content clauses are formed via
nominalization
rather than
conjunction. The nominalized clause behaves like a noun phrase; for instance, it can be marked
for accusative if it’s a direct object, or it can stand in the nominative as the subject of a sentence,
and it takes a possessive suffix to indicate its logical subject if that subject is different from the
main clause’s subject.
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 1159
There is, however, an alternative strategy in Uzbek for embedding clauses, particularly
in reporting speech or thoughts, which involves the particle
deb
.
Deb
is historically the converb
(gerund) of the verb demoq (“to say”), and it functions as a
complementizer-like
element
meaning roughly “saying/that”. It is used after a fully finite clause to indicate an indirect
quotation or content clause. For example: Hasan bozorga ketdi
deb
eshitdim means “I heard
that
Hasan went to the market,” literally “Having heard (it) saying ‘Hasan went to the market’”.
In this construction, deb follows the quoted clause (Hasan bozorga ketdi) and precedes the main
verb (eshitdim “I heard”). The embedded clause remains finite (with its own tense and person
marking) and deb marks it as reported content. This deb-clause strategy is common for verbs of
saying, thinking, perceiving (e.g. o‘yladi “thought”, aytdi “said”, eshitdim “I heard”). It is
somewhat analogous to using “that” in English, but deb is more restricted in usage, often
implying a direct or indirect quote. It is noteworthy that both strategies – nominalization (-
ganini bilmoq “to know that X has...”) and deb clauses (X deb bilmoq “to know (thinking) X”)
– can sometimes be used with similar meaning, though there may be subtle differences in
formality or emphasis. The
choice
of strategy can depend on the verb and context: for many
cognitive verbs like bilmoq (“to know”), the nominalized form is more typical (X-ni bilmoq),
whereas for o‘ylamoq (“to think”), a deb clause is common (X deb o‘ylamoq, literally “think
saying X”). The existence of two embedding strategies in Uzbek – a
head-final
complementizer
(deb) vs. a
morphologically embedded nominalized clause
– has been noted
in linguistic studies. Each has its syntactic constraints, but together they allow Uzbek to cover
the functions of Indo-European “that”-clauses without needing a dedicated invariant
complementizer word.
Relative Clauses:
Uzbek does not use relative pronouns equivalent to French qui, que,
dont, où. Instead, it employs
participial modifiers
to create what function as relative clauses. A
relative clause in Uzbek is typically a
participle phrase placed before the noun it modifies
(since Uzbek is head-final and modifiers precede the head noun). The verb of the subordinate
clause takes a participial suffix that agrees in tense/aspect and sometimes voice, and the
subordinate clause usually omits the relative pronoun entirely (the role of the gap is indicated
by word order and participle form). For example, men o‘qigan kitob means “the book
that I
read
” where o‘qigan is a past participle of o‘qimoq (“to read”) meaning “having read” (with an
implied “which I…”). Literally, men o‘qigan kitob is “I-read book” – the person who did the
reading (I) is indicated, and o‘qigan modifies kitob. Similarly, u yozgan maktub would mean
“the letter that s/he wrote” (yozgan “written (by him/her) letter*). Because participles like -gan
can encode past tense relative clauses, -adigan for habitual/future relative meaning (“that
[someone] will/would [verb]”), etc., Uzbek covers the gamut of relative clause meanings
through morphology. There is no need for a word like “which” or “that” to introduce the clause;
subordination is implicit in the participial form. If the head noun’s role in the subordinate clause
is, say, object, the participle alone suffices; if it’s subject, similarly the participle agrees with it.
This construction is very compact. An illustrative ambiguity arises from this compactness, as
noted in Uzbek grammar: Qilganini bilaman could mean “I know
what she did
” or “I know
that she did (it)
”, depending on interpretation. In one reading, qilganini is “what she did” (a
free relative clause, object of know), and in another reading it’s a nominalized factive (“the fact
that she did it”). In speech, context usually clarifies this, and in writing, one might disambiguate
by using the longer form with -ligini: qilganligini bilaman explicitly means “I know that she did
it” (inserting the nominalizing complementizer -lig. The suffix -ligi (a form of -lik) can be
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 1160
added to participles to form abstract nouns (roughly “the fact of doing”), which is used in more
formal contexts or to avoid ambiguity. In essence, Uzbek relative clauses are structurally
similar to other Turkic languages: participle-based, with the subordinate clause directly attached
to the noun it describes. This means translation of French relative clauses into Uzbek requires
transforming a clause with a relative pronoun into a participial phrase, often changing the word
order significantly, and vice versa for Uzbek-to-French (one must supply an appropriate relative
pronoun and finite verb form). Despite the structural difference, the semantic roles (subject,
object, etc.) conveyed by French qui, que, dont are all expressible via the correct participial
suffix and possessor marking in Uzbek.
Adverbial Clauses:
Uzbek expresses adverbial relations (time, cause, purpose, condition,
concession, manner, etc.) using a mix of
converb forms
,
postpositions
, and certain
conjunction-like words. A
converb
is a non-finite verb form (sometimes called an adverbial
participle) that indicates adverbial subordination. Uzbek has a rich set of converbs. One of the
most common is -ib (or -b after vowels), which often corresponds to English “-ing” or “and” in
sequence (it can mean “while doing X” or “and then did X” depending on context). For
example, U uyga
kirib
, chiroqni yoqdi means “He entered the house
and
turned on the light,”
where kirib is a converb of kirmoq (“to enter”). Converbs can indicate temporal sequence (-
gach or -gan zahoti for “after having done X”), simultaneity (-ib turib in some contexts, or -
ayotib for “while doing X”), causality (certain converbal forms can imply “since/because”
when combined with negation or other particles), etc. Another common strategy for adverbial
relations is the use of
participial or infinitival clauses combined with postpositions
that have
adverbial meaning. For time relations, Uzbek often uses phrases like -gach or -ganidan keyin
(“after doing X”, literally “after the fact that X has done”), and -masdan oldin (“before doing
X”, literally “before not doing X”, since the verb is negated to form a “before” converb). For
example, kelmasdan oldin means “before coming” (lit. “without having come before”) and
kelgandan keyin means “after coming”. Purpose clauses are frequently expressed with the
infinitive (verbal noun) plus the postposition
uchun
(“for (the purpose of)”) – e.g. non sotib
olish uchun
do‘konga bordi (“He went to the store
to buy
bread”, lit. “for buying bread he
went to the store”). Causal clauses can be formed with the pattern -gani uchun (“because
(someone) did X”; uchun here means “because” when paired with a verb in nominal form). For
instance, Men kechikkanim
uchun
uzr so‘radim (“I apologized
because
I was late”).
Alternatively, Uzbek has a true subordinating conjunction
chunki
(from Persian chonki)
meaning “because”. One could say Men kech keldim,
chunki
avtobus kechikdi (“I arrived late
because
the bus was late”).
Chunki
is used typically at the beginning of the subordinate clause
(it can also start the sentence: Chunki avtobus kechikdi, men kech keldim – “Because the bus
was late, I arrived late.”). For conditions, Uzbek heavily relies on the
conditional suffix
-sa
(attached to the verb) to denote “if”. Often the word
agar
(“if”, from Persian agar) is used in
tandem with -sa for an explicit if-clause: Agar u kelsa, men ketaman (“If he comes, I will
leave”). In spoken Uzbek, -sa alone can sometimes carry the conditional meaning without
agar
.
Concessive meaning (“although/even if”) can be conveyed by phrases like -sa ham or garchi ...
-sa (where
garchi
= “although” of Persian origin). For example, Garchi u charchagan
bo‘lsa
ham, u ishlashda davom etdi. (“Even though he was tired, he kept working.”). The construction
-sa ... ham literally means “if X also…,” which functions as “even if/although X.” There is also
lekin
or
ammo
for “but, however,” but these are coordinating conjunctions for contrast, not
subordinate.
Qachonki
(literally “when + the Persian complementizer ki”) is sometimes used in
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 1161
literary Uzbek for temporal clauses meaning “when”, but in everyday usage a temporal
subordinate clause is more often expressed with participial forms like -ganda. For example:
Men seni ko‘rganimda, xursand bo‘ldim (“I was happy when I saw you”), where ko‘rganimda
combines ko‘rganim (“my having seen”, i.e. “that I saw”) with the locative -da to mean “at the
time of my seeing (you)”. This -ganimda construction corresponds to a finite “when” clause in
French (quand je t’ai vu). Similarly, -gach can serve as “after (doing)”: Uyga kelgach, u dam
oldi (“After coming home, he rested”). Another notable converbal construction uses
-ib
, which,
in combination with words like turib or bo‘lib, can yield meanings such as “even though” or
indicate an action done immediately before another. For instance, uydan chiqmasimizdan
turib
ketishibdi (literally “before we left the house, they had already gone”) – here turib (literally
“standing”) after a negative converb means “before even X happened”. This illustrates how
Uzbek can stack converbs and postpositions to fine-tune temporal and other relations.
In summary, Uzbek adverbial subordination often relies on
suffixal morphology and
auxiliary particles
rather than separate conjunction words. Key subordinators in Uzbek include
agar
(if),
chunki
(because),
garchi
(although),
qachonki
(when), as well as Uzbek-specific
structures like the conditional -sa, purposive -ishga/-(i)sh uchun, and temporal -ganda, -gach, -
guncha, etc. The rich use of non-finite forms (participles, converbs) means that subordinate
clauses in Uzbek are frequently
non-finite
and embedded, whereas French subordinate clauses
are typically
finite
and introduced by conjunctions. This fundamental difference means that an
Uzbek subordinate clause often looks like a part of the main clause (e.g. a noun phrase or an
adverbial phrase), whereas a French subordinate clause is a clearly separate clause introduced
by a conjunction. Despite this difference, the
semantic range
of subordination (the kinds of
ideas that can be expressed as time, cause, condition, etc.) is fully covered in both languages –
it is the form that differs.
To illustrate the difference, consider a simple cause and effect sentence in both languages:
French: *Il est fatigué **parce qu’*il a beaucoup travaillé. (“He is tired
because
he
worked a lot.”)
Uzbek: U juda ko‘p ishlagani
uchun
charchagan. (literally, “He having worked a lot
for/because
[that], is tired.”).
In the Uzbek version, ishlagani uchun is a nominalized clause (ishlagani = “his having worked”)
followed by the postposition uchun (“for”) to mean “because of his having worked a lot”,
without a finite verb in a separate clause. The French uses a finite clause with the conjunction
parce que. Both convey the same causal relationship, but via different grammatical paths.
Comparative Analysis: Structural and Functional Differences
The contrasts between French and Uzbek in expressing subordination highlight interesting
typological differences. In this section, we compare how each language handles specific
subordinate relations and discuss the implications for syntax and translation. We also address
how these differences reflect deeper grammaticalization processes in each language.
Finite vs. Non-finite Subordination:
One of the clearest differences is that French typically
uses
finite subordinate clauses
introduced by conjunctions or relative pronouns, whereas
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 1162
Uzbek often uses
non-finite constructions
(participles, infinitives, converbs) without an
explicit conjunction. This means that in French, both the main and subordinate clauses have
fully conjugated verbs (potentially with different subjects, tense, mood, etc.), explicitly linked
by a subordinating word. In Uzbek, the subordinate clause frequently appears as a verb form
attached with suffixes, looking more like part of the main clause rather than an independent
clause. Syntactically, French subordinate clauses are separate constituents, while Uzbek
subordinate constructions may merge into the main clause’s structure. For example, a French
complement clause que S is a separate CP (complementizer phrase) in syntactic terms, whereas
an Uzbek nominalized clause S-gan-i is essentially a noun phrase embedded in the main clause.
This structural difference can affect word order: French subordinate clauses can follow or (less
commonly) precede the main clause, but in Uzbek, since subordinate material often functions as
a modifier or argument, it usually comes
before the main clause’s verb
(as per the head-final
structure) to maintain proper scope and dependency.
Conclusion
French and Uzbek provide a striking case study in typological contrast with respect to
subordinate clauses and their expression. French relies on a
conjunction-based, analytic
strategy: it has a variety of subordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns that introduce
fully inflected subordinate clauses. These clauses are integrated into sentence structure through
fixed word order and often marked by special verb moods (indicative vs. subjunctive) that
clarify the nature of the subordination. The French system has been shaped by centuries of
grammaticalization, turning lexical phrases into functional linkers (as seen with parce que, afin
que, bien que, etc.), and retains complexity in choice of conjunctions to convey subtle
distinctions of meaning and register.
Uzbek, on the other hand, exemplifies a
morphology-heavy, agglutinative
approach to
subordination: it typically does without a general complementizer “that”, instead embedding
subordinate propositions as nominalized or participial forms within the main clause.
Coordination between clauses in Uzbek can sometimes blur with subordination due to the
frequent use of converbs that string actions together. Yet, Uzbek is fully capable of expressing
the same array of logical relations – time, cause, purpose, condition, concession – through its
own means: suffixes like -sa for condition, particles like agar, chunki (borrowed but nativized),
and constructions like -gani uchun for causation. The historical development of Uzbek
subordinators involves both
the preservation of ancient Turkic non-finite clause structures
and
the adoption of Persian conjunctions
, reflecting Central Asia’s contact-driven linguistic
evolution.
Syntactically, French subordinate clauses are clearly delineated parts of a sentence,
whereas Uzbek’s often merge into the sentence as modifiers or noun-like entities. This results
in
different surface structures
that require careful handling in translation and contrastive
analysis. We have seen that to translate a subordinate clause from one language to the other
often means
changing its form
(finite ↔ non-finite) while preserving its function. Despite
these differences, neither language is “better” or “worse” at expressing complex ideas – they
simply illustrate two different solutions that human languages have developed.
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 1163
From a theoretical perspective, comparing French and Uzbek underscores the importance of not
taking concepts like “subordinating conjunction” or “relative pronoun” as universal. Uzbek
shows that subordination can be indicated without an invariant conjunction, using morphology
and context. Meanwhile, French shows how a language can elaborate a rich set of linking words
through grammaticalization to manage complex syntax. Any comprehensive linguistic theory or
typology must account for both patterns. Indeed, the study of
converbial subordination
(common in Turkic, Mongolic, etc.) versus
conjunctional subordination
(common in Indo-
European) has been a fruitful area for understanding the balance between syntax and
morphology in language design.
In conclusion, the study of subordinate clauses in French and Uzbek reveals how deeply
syntax is intertwined with morphology and historical development. French’s subordinate clause
system is the product of internal evolution and grammaticalization of Latin elements into new
forms suited to the French sound system and syntax. Uzbek’s system reflects a continuity of an
older Turkic strategy of nominalization, supplemented by strategic borrowings for clarity and
literary style. Both languages achieve the expressive goal of embedding one proposition inside
another – a cornerstone of complex thought and communication – but they map this
functionality to different grammatical devices. Understanding these types of subordination
enriches our appreciation for linguistic diversity and provides valuable insights for translation,
language learning, and linguistic theory.
References:
1.
Haßler, G. (2008). Les conjonctions de causalité et leur grammaticalisation en français.
Linx
, 59, 95–114.
2.
Gribanova, V. (2013). Copular clauses, clefts, and putative sluicing in Uzbek.
Language,
89
(4), 798–833.
3.
Turkolog.ist (n.d.). “Factive” Subordination in Uzbek. Retrieved from Turkolog.ist/uzbek.
(A pedagogical grammar note explaining how Uzbek expresses English “that”-clauses with
nominalized verb forms and possessive suffixes, providing clear examples.)
4.
Lawless, L. (2023). French Subordinating Conjunctions. In
Lawless French
(online
grammar resource). (Lists common French subordinating conjunctions and their uses,
highlighting types like time, cause, and condition conjunctions.)
5.
TheLanguages.com (2025). Uzbek Conjunctions. (Overview of Uzbek coordinating and
subordinating conjunctions, with examples of usage in sentences; useful for basic reference
on agar, chunki, garchi, etc.)
6.
WordReference Forums (2012). Discussion on “chunki” (Persian/Uzbek). (User greatbear
notes that Uzbek chunki and Turkish çünkü are Persian loans meaning “because”,
illustrating cross-linguistic influence in subordinators.)
7.
Lingolia French Grammar (2023). Complex Sentences: Subordinate, Relative, and
Adverbial Clauses. (Provides definitions and examples of French subordinate clause types
and how to recognize them, helpful for contrasting with Uzbek structures.)
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 1164
8.
Universal Dependencies (2022). Uzbek Grammar Overview. (Notes the categories of Uzbek
conjunctions and the use of suffixes in complex sentences; mentions that Uzbek subordinate
clauses are often nominalized or marked by particles like agar, chunki.)
9.
Nedjalkov, V. P., & Nedjalkov, I. V. (1987). On the typological characteristics of converbs.
In
Symposium on Language Universals
(Tallinn). (While not specific to Uzbek and
French, this work provides a typological backdrop for understanding Uzbek converbs in
contrast to languages like French which lack them.)
10.
Sodikova, F. M. (2005). Syntax of the Uzbek Language. Tashkent: O‘qituvchi. (In Uzbek,
provides a comprehensive description of Uzbek sentence structure, including subordinate
clauses formed by participles and verbal nouns. Useful for in-depth reference on native
terminology and analysis of Uzbek subordination.)
