INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 518
FEATURES OF EXPRESSIVENESS OF THE POSESSIVITY FIELD IN
COMPARABLE LANGUAGES
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
Associate professor of the department of English Philology
Parvina Ilhomovna Khotamova
Abstract
: this article provides information about features of expressiveness of the posessive field
in both languages Uzbek and English. In addition, it gives several notions concerning
posessiveness in both languages from prominent linguists and exemplify with the proven theories.
Keywords
:
possessiveness, lexical-semantic, grammatical category, conjugations.
The problems of the relationship between philosophical, linguistic and logical categories
and their mutual dependence have been the subject of many assessments since the
separation of linguistics from the philosophy of philosophy. These issues, which are
directly related to the history of mankind, have been interpreted differently by brilliant
scientists at different stages of the development of science. The most controversial aspect
of the issue is that both philosophical and logical analysis find solutions to problems
through language elements. It is appropriate to introduce some clarifications regarding the
problem being analyzed. For example, the concept of "possessiveness" itself is one of the
concepts that requires explanation. For this, first of all, it is necessary to explain the
concept of linguistic field.
It is known from the history of linguistic theory that the concept of linguistic field was put on the
agenda of linguistics since the 60s-70s of the 20th century and was developed by world-renowned
linguists such as Ye.V. Guliga. Ye.I.Shendels, G.S.Shchur, I.I.Meshchaninov. Y.Trier.
L.Weisgerber, A.A.Ufimtseva, J.B.Boronov, S.R.Rakhimov, A.Sh.Sobirov, etc., and these
concepts were widely used in the process of studying linguistic categories [1,2].
We believe that the reason for using the concept of the macrofield of possessiveness in our
scientific research is that it encompasses all means of expressing ownership.
In recent years, linguists have been paying special attention to the problems of categorization of
linguistic phenomena, since the division of expressive means located at different levels of the
language system into certain lexical-semantic groups, the identification of criteria that distinguish
them from other language units, is one of the issues that is becoming relevant on the agenda of
linguistics.
The ten philosophical categories listed by Aristotle cannot manifest themselves without linguistic
means. Taking this into account, in the history of science, philosophers and linguists have been
systematically familiarizing themselves with the ten categories distinguished by Aristotle and
applying them to various fields. We also used Aristotle's method in categorizing the microfield of
possessiveness from a linguistic-typological point of view [5].
Since the languages being compared in the analysis are of different structural systems, the category
of agreement, which is the basis of the macrofield of possessiveness, was interpreted differently
in both languages. Since English is an analytical language, it was found that the category of
agreement has a controversial aspect. It can be explained as follows. As we mentioned in the
section on the level of study of the issue, the very small number of form-forming suffixes in
English led to the denial of agreement as a grammatical category. Therefore, its categorical status
was brought into question. According to scientists, the category of agreement is not a grammatical
category, but a syntactic category, because one of the two categories, that is, the suffix ‘s, which
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 519
is determined by the rule in the formation of the category of possession, is not added to the base
of all nouns, and similar nouns express this meaning through various verbal combinations, for
example: with animate nouns:
my friend’s book
, with inanimate nouns :
the water of the river.
In the Uzbek language, there are six conjugations, and the conjugation category is one of the
basic grammatical categories. Therefore, we first conducted a comparative analysis to determine
the similarities and differences in the conjugation of the languages being compared. The results
are as follows [3].
The conjugation category indicates the relationship between words, the belonging of one subject
to another, the relationship of the subject to the place, the fact that it serves as an intermediary
in performing an action, and several other meanings. Since English and Uzbek are languages
with different systems, the conjugation category in these languages differs from each other as
follows: In English, the conjugation category is not well developed [4], while in Uzbek it is well
developed. The two conjugations in English are morphologically comparable to the six
conjugations in Uzbek:english.: Common case, Possessive case; uzb.: Bosh kelishik, Qaratqich
kelishigi, Tushum kelishigi, Jo‘nalish kelishigi, O’rin-payt kelishigi, Chiqish kelishigi.
The use of nouns in the accusative form in English is limited, mainly nouns denoting personal
names are used in the accusative form, that is, in the possessive accusative form. In Uzbek, all
nouns are used in the accusative form.
While nouns denoting personal names in Uzbek are in the accusative form, in English they are
used with prepositions. For example, daryoning suvi -
the water of the river
, kitobning muqovasi
-
the cover of the book
, soatning tsiferblati -
the face of a clock
.
Common case
(Umumiy kelishik) is not marked in both languages, that is, the morphological
index in them is zero. It is a big mistake to consider the English Common case and the Uzbek
case as permanent equivalents, because a noun in the common case can also be translated using
the six forms of the Uzbek case. When comparing this case with the Uzbek cases, nouns in the
tenth case can be translated without a preposition and with a preposition:
When it comes without a preposition, depending on its function in the sentence, the Common
case can be translated more often in the general case, and partly in the cases of arrival and
departure:
Lanny
turned into Adderley Street (P. Abrahams) — Lenni Adderli-strit ko‘chasiga burildi.
But most of all he would miss
Celia
... (P. Abrahams). Hammasidan ham Seliyani sog‘inadi.
Lanny nodded and lit
a cigarette
(P. Abrahams) — Lenni bosh irg‘ab qo‘yida papiros chekdi.
Entering
the house
he went up the short flight of stairs to his room — Uyga kirdn-da, pastakkina
zinadan o‘z xonasiga chiqdi.
The students asked
the professor
for his new book — Studentlar professordan
uning yangi kitobini so‘radilar.
➢
When used with a preposition, the Common case can be translated into the Uzbek case of the
accusative case of the verb qaratqich, tushum, jo‘nalish, o‘rii-payt va chiqish cases:
The prospects
of this corporation
was splendid (W. Woodward). Bu korporatsiyaning
kelajagi juda yaxshi edi.
They brought him to trial and sentenced him to death for corrupting morals (W. Woodward). Ular
uni sudga olib keldilar va axloq qoidasini buzganligi uchun uni o‘limga hukm qildilar.
Even Charles looking over Marigold’s shoulder
dropped his pipe in astonishment (M. Joseph).
Hatto Charlz ham Merigouldning yelkasi ustidan engashib qarab, hayratdan o‘zinbng mushtugini
tushirib yubordi.
Although nouns in the common declension are prepositional, in some idiomatic expressions they
can be translated into Uzbek without declension forms:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02, 2025
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 520
to fail in love — sevib qolmoq.
•
In Uzbek, too, the isolation of conjunctions alone for typological comparison does not fully
meet the requirements of comparative typology. The translation of English nouns with and without
prepositions into Uzbek shows that in Uzbek, auxiliaries are also used in grammatical connection
with conjunctions. Therefore, we divide conjunctions in Uzbek into auxiliary and unauxiliary
conjunctions.
English prepositional and unauxiliary conjunctions can be translated into Uzbek using auxiliary
and unauxiliary noun forms:
to graduate from the Institute
-institutni tugatmoq,
to come across a difficult word
-qiyin so‘zga duch kelmoq.
to ask for help
-yordam so‘ramoq
for my friend
-o‘rtog‘im bilan
for my friend
-o‘rtog‘im uchun
like my friend
-o‘rtog‘im kabi
besides my friend
-o‘rtog‘imdan (tashqari) boshqa
through my friend
-o‘rtog‘im (orqali) dan
through the garden
-bog‘aro (oralab)
into the garden
-bog‘ ichiga
It should be noted that while in English prepositions are mainly attached to nouns in the general
agreement, in Uzbek pure auxiliaries are attached to nouns in the general agreement.
•Word order is also used to compare the category of agreement in English and Uzbek. For example:
Men Karimga kitob berdim
I have given Karim a book.
Men Karimga kitobni berdim
I have given Karim the book - I have given a
(the) book to Karim
Men y kichkina bolaga daryodan
o‘tishga yordam berdim
I helped that little boy to cross the river.
•
The prepositional and non-prepositional variants of the possessive case in English are mainly
given by the unaccompanied and assisted accusative case in Uzbek. In addition, nouns in the
English possessive case can also be given by adjectives.:
Children's room
— bolalar xonasi;
a three days' journey
— uch kunlik sayohat;
today's match
— bugungi match.
Conclusion
. Since there are six consonants in the Uzbek language, the consonant category is one
of the basic grammatical categories. Therefore, we first conducted a comparative analysis to
determine the similarities and differences in the consonants of the languages being compared.
LIST OF USED LITERATURE
1. Щур Г.С. Теории поля в лингвистике. – М.: Наука,.1974.
2. Усмонов С. Умумий тилшунослик. – Тошкент, Ўқитувчи, 1975.
3. Расулова М.И. Грамматическая категория рода в аспекте гендерной лингвистики. //
Ҳозирги
замон
тилшунослиги
ва
хорижий
тиллар
ўқитишнинг
долзарб
масалалари.Республика илмий-амалий конференция материаллари. – Тошкент, 2010. - с.5-
7.
4. Кононов А.Н. Грамматика современного узбекского литературного языка. М-Л: Изд. АН
СССР, 1960.
5. Есперсен О. Философия грамматики. М.: Изд. иностр. лит.1958.
