353
oshirishni istаsа, undа bu tаklifni tаsdiqlаsh, dа'vo qilishi yoki hаtto vа'dа qilishi mumkin. Shundа
u "Mеn qаytib kеlаmаn", “Mеn qаytib kеlishimni qаytа-qаytа tа’kidlаymаn”, “Mеn qаytib
kеlishgа vа’dа bеrаmаn” dеgаn jumlаlаr yordаmidа lokutiv hаrakаtni аmаlgа oshirаdi. Boshqаchа
qilib аytgаndа, pеrlokutiv, illokutiv vа lokutiv аkt hodisаlаri bir-biri bilаn o’zаro аloqаdor vа biri
ikkinchisi bilаn chаmbаrchаsp bog’liqdir. Mаsаlаn, lokutiv аkti so’zlovchi jumlаni tаlаffuz
qilingаnidа nаmoyon bo’lаdi, jumlаning so’zlovchi tomonidаn tinglovchigа yеtkаzilishi vа bu
jumlаning tinglovchigа tа’siri illokutiv аkt jаrаyonidа nаmoyon bo’lаdi. Pеrlokutiv аkt еsа,
tаlаffuz qilinаyotgаn jumlа nаtijаsidа biror bir hаrаkаtning bаjаrilishidа nаmoyon bo’lаdi.
Yuqoridа аytilgаnidеk, bu jаrаyonlаr o’zаro аloqаdor. Chunki, pеrllokutsiyа illokutsiyааkti
nаtijаsidа yuzаgа kеlаdi. Аgаr illokutiv аkt ro’y bеrmаsа, dеmаk pеrlokutiv аkt bo’lishi hаm
dаrgumon.
REFERENCES:
1.
Аustin J.L. How To Do Things With Words. –Oxford: Oxford Univ. Prеss., 1962; 2 nd еd.,
1973.- 167 р.
2.
Pеrrаult С. R. аnd Аllеn J. F. А pi аn-bаsеd аnаlysis of indirеct spееch аcts.
Аmеricаn journаl
of computаtionаl linguistics
, 6(3-4):167- 182, 1980.
3.
Bаch K., Hаrnish R.M. Linguistic communicаtion аnd spееch аcts. – Cаmbridgе, Mаss.: MIT
Prеss, 2000, - 484p.
4.
Sаyfullаyеvа R.R. Hozirgi o’zbеk tilidа qo’shmа gаplаrning formаl-funksionаl tаlqini. –
Toshkеnt, 1994, 33-55 – b
5.
Хакимов М, Узбек прагмалингвистикаси асослари. – Тошкент, «Академ нашр», 2013.
STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOLEXEMES IN THE
ENGLISH AND KARAKALPAK LANGUAGES
Tleumuratov G., Tleumuratov A,
Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
This anthropolexical microsystem has not been studied as such and has not been identified
to a greater or lesser extent: firstly, in the modern Karakalpak language, and secondly, in a
comparative and contrastive manner between the English and Karakalpak languages. The source
and material were explanatory dictionaries of modern English and a four-volume dictionary of the
Karakalpak language. Let us note the fact that the anthropolexical microsystem attracts attention
by the fact that the units included in it are heterogeneous in their semantic and functional
orientation. Three groups can be distinguished here: the first will include types of professional
names that are neutral in relation to the characterization or assessment of a person (flyer-ushıwshı-
pilot), the second group will contain words that characterize a person or evaluate him positively,
and the third - negatively.
Preliminary study shows that the most productive and therefore the most numerous is the
group in which words characterize a person from a negative perspective. This vocabulary has a
pragmatic orientation in the compared languages.
The anthropolexeme is distinguished by its evaluative component and anthropocentricity;
most of these lexemes are the names of a person or the realities of the surrounding world directly
related to human life. Anthropolexemes represent interesting material for the study of such
problems as “language and man”, “subject and world”, allowing us to see the characteristics of the
354
human personality through language. They express the richness of the human psyche, emotional
relationships to phenomena and other people [58].
Anthropolexemes in the compared languages perform the following linguopragmatic
functions: 1. Nominative (nominal) function, such units reflect the otherness of perception, a
relaxed view of the surrounding reality. For example: English mindblower – kk. Miy jewshi.
2. Identifying function, i.e., a kind of indicator informing others that the speaker considers
himself to be a member of a certain group or subculture. For example: English hippie - kk. hippie.
3. Appellative / factual function - this is an appeal to a potential interlocutor, “covering
constantly changing roles of the 1st and 2nd person.” For example: English Hey, you alkie, look
at alkie me – kk. Hey, sen alkash, men alkashka qara.
4. Emotive function – the ability of anthropolexems to be motivated and highly expressive.
For example: English Oh, my trouble and strife. (about his wife) – kk. Ah, menin’ basawriw
ta’shwishim.
5. Invective function - invective is a verbal violation of an ethical taboo. For example:
English boneheaded – kk. qabaqbas, eshekbas, kepekbas, tawiqmiy, shaymiy. Invective: qirshin
(expletive).
The microsystem of human faces in English, as in any other language, is one of the most
representative, especially when it comes to the characteristics and assessments of a person in terms
of his positive or negative manifestations. The name (nomination) of persons is a fairly extensive
quantitatively and semantically diverse fragment of the language dictionary and its text part.
When studying the anthropolexical microsystem, attention is drawn to the fact that the units
included in it are heterogeneous in their semantic and functional orientation. Here we can
distinguish groups: the first will include words that are neutral in relation to the characteristics or
assessment of a person, such as names by profession (flyer, worker, physician, engineer in English,
musinshi, balykshi, khizmetker, shypaker in Karakalpak), the second group will contain words
characterizing a person or evaluating him positively (English: expert, genius, master, workman,
man of courage, boaster, smart, kk.: danishpan, miynetkesh, bilgish, zhuўas, batyr, sheshen), and
in the third with a negative meaning (English .: egoist, brawler, cunning devil, naive person, kk.:
an’qaw, eser, urliqshi, sum, egoist, maqtanshaq, etc.).
Preliminary observation of the material shows that the most productive and thus the most
numerous in the compared languages is the group in which words characterize a person from a
negative perspective. This vocabulary has a pragmatic orientation.
The pragmatic component is understood as the sum of connotations (social, cultural, ethical,
historical, emotive, evaluative, associative), as well as the specifics of semantics - all the numerous
and diverse elements accompanying the lexical meaning, which in a speech act carry information
about the intentions of the speaker, about the speech situation , about the status of the interlocutors,
about the assessment of the subject of speech, etc. [15].
Further, in the process of creativity of the speaker in different situations and in his different
status, new anthropolexemic neologisms of innovation degenerate.
Until now, such fragments of the anthropolexical microsystem (anthropolexemes-
innovations) have not been studied in the pragmatic aspect in the Karakalpak language, as well as
in comparative and contrast terms.
Now we move on to the analysis of the semantic properties (or groups) of anthropolexemes
that characterize a person (personality).
355
Anthropolexemes in speech mainly include word-formation (derivational) and semantic
motivations. In the following formula:
1. person → person;
2. animal → person;
3. (inanimate) object → person;
4. plant → person;
5. mythological and abstract concepts → man;
6. nickname→ person.
Based on these motivations, the semantic properties of anthropolexemes (or groups) that
characterize a person (person) in relation to occupations and activities are determined; by assessed
actions, behavior, lifestyle; by assessed character traits; physical features and appearance, social
properties. This classification can be expanded, but the volume of work does not allow us to cover
a whole group of anthropolexems that evaluate the character of a person (person).
In the English language, the number of anthropolexemes of a slang nature is greater than in
the Karakalpak language.
In the Karakalpak language, anthropolexemic slangs are almost absent, although there are
lexemes of a non-nominative nature. For example: kk. testti testik, testten ushtiq, sorawdi shashtiq,
jayrap jattiq, etc.
In the languages being compared, synonymous anthropolexemes are often found. For
example, in Karakalpak: kawshikbas, kepekbas, qabaqbas, suwbas, sabanbas, tawiqmiy, etc.,
evaluating a non-mental person in English: madman, simpleton, anass, donkey, dunce, dull,
obtuse, etc.
If we conduct a contrastive analysis of the semantic properties of anthropolexemes (or
groups) characterizing a person (person) in the compared languages, then this will indicate the
following patterns of features.
Anthropolexemes actually have a secondary nomination in speech or when addressing an
interlocutor from the perspective of semantic derivation. This group includes slangs and
phraseological units. For example:
1. In relation to occupations, activities: yard saler, job hopper, div inspector (female
doctor), freshman, goldbrick (loafer), old bird (shot sparrow), control-freak (controlling), hogger
(dangerous driver), and etc., kk. kotereshi, currency dealer (borrowed words), kaltaman (thief),
speaker (borrowed), from zhakkysh, koshebiy, etc.
2. By assessed actions, behavior, lifestyle: for example. English stoner (addict), Bible-basher
(religious person), booser (alcoholic), bookaholic (book lover, slang), screenager (mobile phone),
eyeopener (gossiper, slanderer), bigmouth (liar); kk. sum, tarpabasar, alkash, suyqayaq, biyhaya,
suganaq, jelparrik.
3. By assessed character traits: for example, English. witster (expert), disreputperson,
mindblower (male), android, alkie, wordaholic (male slang), blowhard (braggart), chatterbox
(chatterbox), apple-polisher (sycophant), gold brick (lazy), etc., kk. suwjaqpas, brake (borrowed
words), jag’impaz, ziqna, sozanay (asiqpaytug’in), jelo’kpe (o’sekshi), la’per (suyiq ayaq erkek),
quwirshaq (ushpelek), аqkokirek, an’qaw, biyshara, g’ariypi and etc.
4. By assessed physical traits and appearance: for example, English. chopstick (thin), fatso
(full), fishhead (Asian), africoon (black), eyecandy (nice person), pussycat (attractive girl),
beefcake (athletic person), etc., kk. tasmanlay (qa’lmek), ko’mpis (kompek), qamsemiz, la’wze,
356
shiljin, miqir (ka’rlik), qunish, albasli, tasqulaq, kөse, pushiq, badaybat, suwmurin, sholak, soqir,
tolg’an ay (er jetken qiz), qa’lemqas (suliw qiz), talshibiq, qipshabel, qolanshash, etc.
5. By assessed social properties: for example, English. deadbeat mother (irresponsible
mother), lass (unmarried girl), sophomore (second-year student), busybodies (representatives of
the police), retiree (pensioner), pipette (popstar-female star), queenbee (girl leader), etc. kk.
zhuldyz (qosiqshi), biy (uriw basi), jenge (aralasiwshi shaxs), boydaq, qulaq(tin’shi), jansiz, etc.
Thus, when analyzing anthropolexemes, it is clear that in both languages they constitute
units with a negative evaluative modality; they can be relatively divided into several semantic
blocks, negative characteristics of a person according to character traits: anthropolexemes
semantically motivated by physical features; negative names associated with lifestyle, professional
activity, social status.
The opposition to the group described above is a group with a positive component of
meaning. In this lexical segment, the connotation itself “beauty, courage, attractiveness,
leadership” is activated, reflecting the personal, emotional attitude of the speaker and taking into
account his pragmatic intentions.
Semantic analysis of the units of this microsystem from the perspective of negativity in the
English and Karakalpak languages demonstrated a number of similarities and a common view of
man. However, among anthropolexems with negative and positive connotations, there is an
asymmetry, depending on the difference in national-cultural values, traditions and histories of both
peoples.
REFERENCES:
1. Berdimuratov E. Karakalpak tilinin’ leksikologiyasi. –Nokis: “Bilim”, 2004.
2. Dulichenko L.V. Anthropolexemes with negative meaning and their lexicographic description:
Author's abstract. dissertation... candidate of philological sciences:10.02.01.- B.m., 2000.- 187 p.
3. Zabotkina V.I. New vocabulary of modern English. –M.: “Higher School”, 1989.
4. Karasik V.I. Status of a person in the meaning of a word. – Volgograd, 1989.
5. Nelyubin L. L. Explanatory translation dictionary / L. L. Nelyubin. – M.: Flinta, “Science”,
2003. – 320 p.
6. Rasulova M. I. Problems of lexical categorization in linguistics. – Tashkent, 1999.
7. Safarov Sh. Semantics. – Tashkent, 2013, – 342 b.
8. Ernazarov K. Shaimiy. –Nokis: “Karakalpakstan” baspasy, 2019.
COMPOSITIONAL WAYS OF EXPRESSING DIMINUTIVES IN ENGLISH AND
KARAKALPAK
Tleumuratov G.T., scientific advisor, docent of Karakalpak State University,
Uzakova A., MA student of Karakalpak State University
In their structure, complex words expressing diminutiveness in the compared languages
are divided into compound and complex derivatives.
In accordance with this, the following models were identified:
1) self-complex words formed by combining two root bases:
Model 1. N1 + N2
For example, in English:
childwife – женщина подросток baby elephant – слоненок
