36
Хорезмийлер
, сагдий,
саклар
(«Тумарис»).
Кәриймалар
қосық айтып бийлеп жүр («Жолдас муғаллим»).
Айырым жағдайларда
–лар
қосымтасы қосылғанда аўызеки сөйлеўде элизия
қубылысы ушырасады. Шайыр бундай сөзлерди де өз поэмаларында жий пайдаланған.
Мәселен,
Балалардың
кейпин аңлар күлимлеп,
Муғаллим де сүйкимли еди қаныңдай («Жолдас муғаллим»).
Ушар
баллар
сабақтан кеш қалмасқа,
Жыңғыр-жыңғыр етип күлсе қоңыраў («Жолдас муғаллим»).
Жық-жық қарлығашлар – болельшик
баллар
(«Дала әрманлары»).
И. Юсупов өз поэмаларында атлықтың көплик қосымталарын шеберлик пенен
пайдаланыў арқалы шығарма тилиниң көркем болыўына ерискен.
ПАЙДАЛАНЫЛҒАН ӘДЕБИЯТЛАР:
1.
Бекбергенов А. Қарақалпақ тилиниң стилистикасы. Нөкис, «Қарақалпақстан», 1990.
2.
Бекбергенов А. Қарақалпақ тилинде сөзлердиң жасалыўы. Нөкис, 1979.
3.
Da’wletov A, Da’wletov M, Qudaybergenov M. Ha’zirgi qaraqalpaq a’debiy tili. Morfemika.
Morfonologiya. So’z jasaliw. Morfologiya. No’kis “Bilim” 2010.
4.
Насыров
Д.С. Қарақалпақ тилинде көплик категориясы. Нөкис, 1961.
SOME QUESTIONS OF STUDYING THE CATEGORY OF FINALITY IN THE
SENTENCE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Eshimbetova Gulzada Davletovna, Senior teacher
Karakalpak State University
Abstract.
This article is devoted to the consideration of the aspect of category of finality in
a sentence structure of the English language. The object of study is to consider the expression of
finality. The expressions of processuality and actionality are proved by means of omission
transformation. The research is carried out both in syntagmatic and paradigmatic terms.
Key words:
final syntaxema, syntactical, paradigmatics, finality category
In traditional grammar, the syntactical analysis of sentences is carried out with the separation
of the main and secondary members. (L.P.Vinokurova, 1954; V.N.Zhigadlo et al. 1956).
Others analyze sentences in terms of structural linguistics. In this regard, R.H.Robins notes
that “structural - an epithet that few linguists would currently reject in their works, as it bears the
imprint of modernity and scientific thinking, no matter how different its applications are ... In the
application to general linguistics as a whole, the term “structural” has a rather definite broad
meaning, namely, it means that the elements and categories of linguistic description and analysis
are established and explained taking into account their mutual relations in the system or systems
of the corresponding language, and not a certain set of units, each of which has its own independent
formal structure or meaning. Applied to syntax, perhaps this term is added less than applied to
other levels of linguistic analysis ” (R.H.Robins, 1961).
37
All this suggests that the allocation of “structural linguistics” in its opposition to “traditional
linguistics” does not have the proper theoretical foundations. It should be noted that the name
“structural linguistics” is interpreted so differently and vaguely in linguistic literature. (See:
A.Martinet, 1953; A.Juilland, 1961).
Or, for that branch of linguistics, which we call linguistic analysis here, sometimes the name
“system linguistics” is also used. However, this name is not able to serve the purpose of separating
linguistic analysis from other sciences. Here or in this article there is no possibility to touch on
different interpretations of the concept of a system in modern linguistics, which are no less diverse
and contradictory than interpretations of the concept of structure.
In this article, we consider adverbial modifier of purpose (finality) in the structure of English
sentences based on linguistic methods, such as componential and syntax-based analysis, various
types of transformations developed by Professor A.M.Mukhin and his students are used
[A.M.Mukhin, 1968; 1976; 1980 ; U.U.Usmanov, 2015 and others.].
Componential analysis of the structure of sentences or surface structure of sentences is
understood by us as the definition of the syntactic connection of syntactic units expressing finality
(goals) with other elements in the structure of sentences in syntagmatic terms. This is reflected in
the junctional models. On the basis of the junctional models, the differential syntactic features and
their morphological characteristics of the syntactic elements are revealed, which are clearly
reflected in the componential models.
Differential syntactic - semantical features are revealed, i.e. the syntax and elemental
composition of elementary syntactic units in the structure of this sentence, which is carried out in
paradigmatic plan.
Our object of study is to consider the expression of finality. Therefore, in order to prove the
expressions of finality, this sentence is amenable to transformation adding
in order to
:
At last I rose to go to bed → At last I rose in order to go to bed.
When “to go” expresses the final syntaxema, it is combined with procedural actional
syntaxema on the basis of subordinate connection. According to the transformation results, the
omission “to go” already in the syntactic position expresses the procedural actional syntaxema
and, on the basis of the nuclear predicative connection, is combined with the substantial agentive
syntaxema.
In the above analyzed sentence, the final syntaxema is expressed by an infinitive, but the
factual material indicates that the final syntaxema can be expressed by a gerund in a prepositional
combination:
She used it for keeping small bits and odds. (Galsw)
And the sign of causality in this structure is proved by replacing the preposition for with the
combination
because of
:
I was just on my way to hotel for a cup of tea. → I was just on my way to hotel because of
a cup of tea.
Variants of the final syntaxema in the Old Russian language, as noted by A.M.Mukhin, “...
the system of variants of the final syntaxema in the Old Russian language includes combinations
of prepositions
in, in, on and pro
with the accusative form” [A.M.Mukhin, 1980, 10].
The finality sign of the combination
for + noun
is manifested by the possibility of replacing
for + noun by combining the infinitive of the goal with a noun or a combination for the sake of, or
by transforming the addition of a combination in order to:
38
He proposed that we should play for money. - … that we should play to get money. - … that
we should play in order to get money. - … that we should play for the sake of money.
The final syntaxeme in the structure of simple common sentences is expressed by an
infinitive and very often this syntaxeme expressed by an infinitive is introduced by a prepositional
combination in order to:
He was going to lodge in London in order to be near his training. (Galsw)
When the final syntaxeme is expressed with a gerund or a noun, they are combined with
prepositions:
A man’s house was not suited for a pig to live in. (Galsw)
The final syntaxeme can be expressed in the structure of complex target sentences. Target
sentences are introduced by
that, in order that, so that
and negative
lest
and
for fear (that)
alliances:
He pointed to his honoured parent with the carving - fork, in order that they might know
whom he meant. (Dick)
I have told her so, and so for fear she should tell you, I do it myself. (Bens)
According to the results of the analysis of the structure of the sentence on the basis of
linguistic methods, it can be said that it is possible to study the structural - syntactic and syntactic
- semantic content of the final prepositional and non-sentence combinations, i.e. determine the
component and syntaxemic status of combinations of a noun and a gerund with a preposition, an
infinitive without a preposition. All this is considered in the structure of a sentence based on
syntactic connections. The research is carried out both in syntagmatic and paradigmatic terms.
Based on these methods, i.e. componential and syntaxeme analysis of the final syntaxemes and
transformational method, it is possible to identify and study the paradigmatic series of substantial,
processual and qualificative final syntaxemes, determine the systems of variants of the identified
syntaxemes and study their functional features.
This approach to the study of final syntaxemes in the structure of sentences provides ample
opportunities to analyze them in a comparative - typological sense on the material of related and
unrelated languages.
REFERENCES:
1. Vinokurova P. English grammar. UchPedgiz, L., 1954.
2. Zhigadlo V.N., Ivanova I.P., Iofik L.L. Modern English. Theoretical grammar course.
Publishing house of literature in foreign languages, Moscow, 1956
3. Mukhin A.M. Linguistic analysis. Theoretical and methodological problems. L., 1976
4. Mukhin A.M. Parsing and the problem of language levels. L., 1980
5. Mukhin A.M. The structure of sentences and their models M. - L. - 1968
6. Juilland A. Outline of a general theory of structural relations. Gravenhage, 1961
7. Martinet A. Structural linguistics - In: Anthropology today, an encyclopedic inventory. Chicago,
1953
8. Robins R.H. Syntactic analysis - Archivum Linguisticum, 1961. Vol.13
9. Usmanov U.U. Actual problems of English theoretical Grammar, Samarkand, 2015.
