ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
68
LANGUAGES CONTACTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGES
Dadabaeva Shirin
FERGANA STATE UNIVERSITY
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11142664
Abstract
: This article discusses the role and place of language contacts in the development of
languages. In this regard, linguistic phenomena such as bilingualism and linguistic
interference, which are part of the theory of linguistic contacts, are also highlighted. It is
emphasized that the study of language contacts and their results can contribute to the study of
the features of the structure of the language system itself.
Key words
: language contacts, convergent development, divergent development, linguistic
factor, morphological system, phonological system, monolingual, bilingual, bilingualism,
mixed bilingualism, unmixed bilingualism, creolized language, pidgin, language interference,
lexical borrowing, syntax, morphology.
Language contacts are a complex and multi-stage process, closely related to the development
of society. They suggest the existence of several other - cultural, economic, and so on contacts,
including ethnic ones. Even the activity or inactivity of a party involved in the contact is
determined by extralinguistic factors - cultural or social authority of speakers of a language, of
attributes of its functional importance. Causes of language change first, occurring in the
process of language contact, lie not so much in the structure of the interacting languages as
abroad. On the other hand, one can not doubt that each such Conversion of vanie is a
consequence of the interaction of a whole set of reasons. For quite some results (for example,
to a general simplification of the morphological system, to the tendency to analytic and so on )
result in the very fact of language contact, to a tory objective aims to eliminate idiomatic of
each of the interacting structures. It is well known that changes in the phonological and, in
part, morphological systems of the language are in a certain dependence on the corresponding
changes in vocabulary. However, it should be borne in mind and numerous structural
"factors" of language that facilitate or hinder this or that particular change. So, the fairly
obvious fact that other things being equal, the most prone to this kind of language
transformation in contact with closely related language, characterized by a large structural
and material similarity. It is noted that the vocabulary of a foreign language easier to have
assimilated by languages with a predominance non-articulate synchronous point of view of
words and harder - languages to actively functioning ways compounding and derivation [13].
On the other hand, the inclusion in the new token is stimulated and such internal "factors",
such as a) low frequency of use of the corresponding native words, making them unstable, b)
the presence of unfavorable synonymy, c) the need for expressive synonyms and euphemisms
and so on [1, 52-53]. It is the structural parameters of the language due to sharply different
relationships of languages to syntactic borrowings. The presence in the phonological system
of the language of the so-called “empty cells” contributes to the enrichment of its phonemic
inventory both due to intrastructural transformations and through acquired material. Said,
apparently enough to come to the general conclusion that "only when the study of the internal
factors can answer the question why some outside of exposure impact on the language, while
others - not" [5, 303]. One of the basic concepts of the theory of language contact is the
concept of bilingualism, whereby the study of bilingualism is often recognized as even the
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
69
main task of contact studies. It is in bilingual groups of speakers that one language system
comes into contact with another and for the first time contact-related deviations from the
language norm occur, which are called hereafter W.Weinreich interference [1, 32-39]. and
which subsequently go beyond bilingual groups [3]. Bilingual persons are usually understood
as native speakers of a certain language A, switching to language B when communicating with
native speakers of the latter (moreover, most often one of these languages turns out to be
their native language, and the other acquired). It should be noted that a lively discussion in
the last question of the degree of ownership of speaking a second language (active, passive,
and so on.). It should be noted at the same time that the question of the degree of speaking a
second language (activity, passivity, etc.), which was animatedly discussed in the past, with
“genuine” bilingualism can hardly be considered important, not only because in conditions of
language contact it is only about collective bilingualism, but also since the only consequence
of insufficient knowledge of the second language can be its incomplete assimilation, as is the
case in the so-called "creolized" languages. Moreover, the circumstance does not matter
whether this fact of bilingualism is characterized by the use of a second language with a
functionally unlimited scope or the use of one or another auxiliary language such as pidgin. On
the contrary, it is the appropriate demarcation of the two different types of bilingualism -
unmixed and mixid. With unmixed bilingualism, the acquisition of a second language occurs
during the learning process, during which the learner is informed of the rules for establishing
correspondences between the elements of the mother tongue and the language being studied
and a rational system for fixing these correspondences in memory is provided. With it,
linguistic interference gradually weakens over time, giving way to the correct switching from
one language to another in the goma. In the case of “mixed bilingualism” (the term of L. V.
Shcherba), established in the process of self-learning, both languages are forming in the
speaker’s mind only one system of categories in such a way that any element of the language
then has its direct equivalent in another language. In this case, language interference
progresses, capturing ever wider layers of the language and leading to the formation of a
language with one plan of content and two planes of expression, qualified by L.V.Shcherba as a
“mixed language with two terms” (langue mixte a Deux termes). It should be noted that
unmixed bilingualism is characteristic of language contacts occurring in conditions of a high
level of education and culture [12, 59-65; 17, 47-52; 7, 261-264]. From what has been said, it
should follow that for an adequate understanding of the mechanism of language change in
bilingualism, the description of the contact process in the form of learning models with a focus
on the “learner” is of great importance, since at least one of the contacting parties teaches the
other to understand the language and speak it [1, 20-26; 11, 124-126]. In the history of
languages, it is fundamentally important to distinguish between two different consequences
of language contacts - the borrowing of individual language elements (the assimilation of
more or fewer substantive or structural characteristics) in the broadest sense of the word, on
the one hand, and the change of language as a whole, on the other. It should be borne in mind
that both phenomena correspond not so much to a different degree of intensity of language
contact, but to different social or political conditions in which this contact is made. At the
same time, a change of language occurs in different ways: in one case, it leads to a more or less
complete assimilation of the language and, consequently, to language assimilation of the
corresponding bilingual groups, and in others to its incomplete assimilation, which results in
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
70
the emergence of the so-called "Pidgin" and creolized languages. Given the structural
homogeneity of these languages, characterized by the so-called “optimal” grammatical
structure, which transfers the center of gravity to the syntactic ways of expressing
grammatical meanings (they do not, for example, contain such excessive features of European
languages as gender, number, case of pronouns, complex verb forms, etc.), and substantially
reduced vocabulary inventory, Creolized languages differ from Pidgin only in their area of
functioning, since they are the native languages of certain ethnic groups in the West Indies,
West Africa, to the islands of the Indian and Pacific oceans, while pidgins only play the role of
auxiliary languages with a very limited sphere of operation (the latter feature characterizes
the artificial auxiliary languages such as Esperanto and Ido). In most cases, these languages
owe their formation to the conditions of unequal social or economic relations between
speakers of contacting languages. It should be noted that modern specialized literature
emphasizes not a mixed, but one-sided - in almost all cases Indo-European - affiliation of the
languages in question (noteworthy is the high level of their lexical homogeneity) [3, 374-379].
The most subject to contact changes in the language system, as you know, is vocabulary. If we
bear in mind that it is lexical borrowings that mediate most of the other contact-related
changes - phonological and morphological (the exception is syntactic), then it is easy to see
what far-reaching consequences for the structure of the language they can lead. According to
the degree of phonetic and functional adaptations occurring, however, are not always parallel,
lexical borrowing can be divided into developed and undeveloped. The predominant sphere of
lexical borrowings in the language, of course, is the more or less peripheral categories of
vocabulary, for example, industry terminology, proper names, etc. However, in cases of more
or less intense external pressure, the so-called “main” vocabulary of the language becomes
open for contact penetration. In particularly favorable conditions of contact, the percentage of
acquired vocabulary, especially for some styles of language, can be very high. It is noted, for
example, that medieval Turkish and Persian literary languages accounted for up to 80% of
Arabisms, Korean - up to 75% of Sinism. It is known that the abundance of Iranian strata of
different eras in the Armenian dictionary for a long time even prevented an adequate
determination of the place of the Armenian language among the Indo-European. Such a high
degree of permeability of the lexical structure of the language contains an indication of its
most open - compared to other levels of the structure - character so that the inclusion of a
new term in it leads to minimal disturbance of existing system relations.
Lexical inclusion necessarily lead to the development of language synonyms (though usually -
incomplete), to changes in the semantics of native words (for example, in the United States
under the influence of the semantics of English. To Introduce, port. Introduzir, it. Introdurre
and French Introduire purchased additional meaning 'introduce, represent'). On the other
hand, as G. Paul saw, it is through massive cases of assimilation of lexemes of the same
structure that individual word-building affixes are borrowed [9, 469]. Thus, in the Uzbek
language acquired and productivity derivational affixoids –
xona, noma, -goh: bosmaxona,
yotoqxona, ishxona, bildirishnoma, yilnoma, yo‘riqnoma
, which have been carved out of a mass
of words of Persian-Tajik origin
guvohnoma, dorinoma, solnoma, farmonnoma, boloxona,
garovxona, kabobxona, mehmonxona, go‘laxxona, darvozaxona
[8, 56]. Similarly, the number of
phraseological changes turns out to be quite high in languages: the vast majority of them are
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
71
represented by tracing papers, although cases of direct assimilation of expressions from
closely related languages are well known (cf. Old Slavonic phraseological units in Russian).
In the grammatical structure of the language in this respect, two essentially different sides are
distinguished - morphology and syntax. If the first of them, as it is constantly emphasized, is
characterized by a very high degree of impermeability, then the second in many cases is very
susceptible to external influences. Indeed, the most obvious result of any kind of close
linguistic contact is not enrichment, but rather a simplification of morphology, which in its
most striking form characterizes creolized languages and pidgin. In such cases, the
morphological methods of expressing meanings, as a rule, are replaced in the resulting
language system by lexical and syntactic ones, as a result of which the composition of
morphological categories is drastically impoverished. As V.Yu. Rosenzweig notes, convincing
confirmation of this kind of exclusion of “idiomatic” categories (that is, absent in one of the
contacting languages) of the categories was obtained by I. A. Melchuk in his work on the
construction of an intermediary language for machine translation: according to the latter in
the intermediary language, there must be means of expressing all the meanings involved in
the translation of languages, and there should be no meanings required only for one of them
(the latter turn into lexical ones) [12, 66].
Conclusion
The above considerations allow us to draw some more or less certain
conclusions. First of all, the formation of new language units as a result of the mixing of others
can be traced with sufficient reliability only at the level of dialects that have not reached the
so-called integration threshold. The integration threshold is understood as a combination of
linguistic features that impede linguistic confusion. For example, although in certain
territories the Russian language is in contact with related languages such as Polish or
Lithuanian, there is still no formation of mixed Polish-Russian or Lithuanian-Russian dialects.
This means that the above-related languages have reached the threshold of integration,
eliminating the present their mixing. Languages are deformed in a certain way under the
influence of other languages but do not mix. In this case, different levels of the language react
differently. One can speak of confusion in the true sense of the word only in the field of
vocabulary. In the area of the sound system, one can observe the assimilation of some
articulations alien to a given language, but not the mixing of the two systems. Systems of
inflectional elements, as a rule, rarely mix. Therefore, there can be no talk of confusion.
Language can perceive only individual typological models. The assimilation of typological and
model models is also characteristic of syntax, although in this area borrowing of some
elements of communication, for example, unions, can be observed. Individual word-building
elements may be borrowed. Besides, as mentioned above, a foreign language influence can be
manifested like stress, the meaning of grammatical forms, it can to a certain extent guide
language development, etc.
References:
1.
Мамажонов А. Ўзбек тили қўшма гапларининг стилистик хусусиятлари: Док.дисс.
– Тошкент, 1991. – Б. 25.
2.
Мамажонов А. Қўшма гап стилистикаси. – Тошкент: Фан, 1990. – Б.19.
3.
Dadabaeva, S. (2020, December). COMPARISON APPROACH AND ITS EXPRESSOR
LANGUAGE TOOLS. In
Конференции
.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
72
4.
Dadabaeva, S. (2021). COMPARATIVE RELATIONS AND THEIR UNIVERSAL
FEATURES.
Scientific journal of the Fergana State University
, (1), 25-25.
5.
SH, D. S. (2023). Comparative Compound Sentence.
American Journal of Language,
Literacy and Learning in STEM Education (2993-2769)
,
1
(6), 257-260.
6.
Дадабаева, Ш., & Аҳмедова, М. (2023). ҚИЁСИЙ СОДДА ГАПЛАРДА ШАКЛ ВА
МАЗМУН МАСАЛАСИ.
BARQARORLIK VA YETAKCHI TADQIQOTLAR ONLAYN ILMIY
JURNALI
,
3
(5), 57-60.
7.
Dadabayeva, S. (2023). Comparative Lexico-Morphological Means in Languages.
Texas
Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
,
19
, 63-68.
8.
Дадабаева, Ш. (2021). ҚИЁСЛАШ МАЗМУНИНИНГ СОДДА ГАПЛАР ДОИРАСИДА
ИФОДАЛАНИШИ.
Scientific journal of the Fergana State University
, (4), 45-45.
