THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
77
GRAMMATICAL MEANS OF EXPRESSING PROHIBITION IN
ENGLISH AND UZBEK: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Hojiyeva Marjona To’lqinovna
PhD student of Bukhara State University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16833069
Abstract
This thesis explores the grammatical means of expressing prohibition in
English and Uzbek languages. Prohibition, as a directive speech act, plays an
essential role in regulating interpersonal communication. While both languages
employ grammatical, lexical, and pragmatic tools to convey prohibitions, the
structure, degree of directness, and cultural underpinnings differ significantly.
This study focuses on grammatical markers, modal verbs, and negative
constructions in both languages, illustrating similarities and differences through
authentic examples.
Introduction
Prohibition is one of the most fundamental communicative functions in
human interaction. It serves as a tool to prevent certain actions, behaviors, or
situations, ensuring social norms and rules are followed. From everyday
conversations to official regulations, prohibitions are embedded in language
through various grammatical devices. In linguistic terms, prohibition is generally
categorized under directive speech acts (Searle, 1979), which aim to influence
the actions of the interlocutor. This study investigates the grammatical
strategies used to express prohibition in English and Uzbek, providing a
comparative perspective that also reflects cultural and pragmatic differences.
Prohibition in English
In English, prohibition is typically conveyed through modal verbs,
imperatives, and negative constructions. Common grammatical structures
include:
Modal verb + not + base verb:
“You must not enter.”
“Children may not play here.”
Imperative + Do Not / Don’t:
“Do not touch the glass.”
“Don’t cross the street here.”
Negative periphrastic forms:
“You are not allowed to smoke here.”
“It is forbidden to park in this area.”
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
78
The choice of structure often depends on the level of formality and the
speaker’s authority. For example, legal and official documents prefer “must not”
or “may not,” while casual speech more often uses “don’t.”
Prohibition in Uzbek
In Uzbek, prohibition is expressed through specific negative particles,
imperative forms, and modal constructions. Key grammatical markers include:
Negative imperative with “-ma/-me”:
“Gapirma!” (Don’t speak!)
“Borma!” (Don’t go!)
Negative particles + modal verbs:
“Bunday qilish lozim emas.” (You shouldn’t do this.)
“Kirish mumkin emas” (It is not allowed to enter.)
Lexicalized prohibitive expressions:
“Ta’qiqlanadi” (It is forbidden)
“Ruxsat etilmaydi” (Not permitted)
Compared to English, Uzbek prohibitions are often more direct in
imperative forms, but official contexts also rely heavily on modal and
nominalized expressions.
Comparative perspective
Both English and Uzbek employ modal verbs, imperatives, and negation to
express prohibition. However, differences emerge in:
Directness: Uzbek frequently uses direct imperatives in spoken language,
while English prefers modal verbs in formal contexts.
Morphological marking: Uzbek attaches negative markers directly to verbs,
whereas English uses auxiliary verbs or separate negators.
Cultural pragmatics: In Uzbek, direct prohibitions can still be considered
polite in certain contexts, while English often softens prohibitions to maintain
politeness.
Conclusion
The grammatical means of expressing prohibition in English and Uzbek
reveal both structural and cultural distinctions. While the core communicative
function remains the same, the linguistic forms reflect different approaches to
authority, politeness, and social interaction. A deeper understanding of these
differences is valuable for translation studies, intercultural communication, and
language teaching.
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
79
References
1.Ochilova, N. S. (2025). Linguistic Features of Negative Units in English and
Uzbek. International Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 06, pp.
111–113. DOI: 10.70728/tech.v2.i06.040.
2.Buranova, D. (2020). Category of Negation and Its Representation in Language
(on the Example of Uzbek and English Languages). JournalNX – A
Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 11, pp. 176.
3.Abdurahimova, N. A. (2024). Structure of Affirmative and Negative Sentences
in Uzbek and Turkish: Commonalities and Differences. Eurasian Journal of
Academic Research.
4.Toshhonov L.T. "In Uzbek and English Prose: Statistical Analysis of Used
Negative Prefixes" (2020).
5.Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech
Acts. Cambridge University Press.
6.Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
7.Su, Y. (2023). Intercultural Communication and Language Conversion in
Translation Studies. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 10(1),
186 189. https://doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v10i1.11116
8.Wikipedia. Uzbek language — Negation section.
