Grammatic Communication Between Joint Components

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 7, (2020), pp. 2101-2103

Abdurayim Turobov Samarkand state institute of foreign languages Samarkand, Uzbekistan [email protected]

Abstract

In this article both syntactic relation and semantic relation among the components of compound word were observed according to small syntax issues. Moreover, this information about the lingvistic nature was given. According to syntactic point of view, it was scientifically proven that the grammatic relation among the components of compound word remains in the static state both when it is used in the composition of the sentence and when it is taken independently. Keywords: Vocabulary, joint word, syntactic relation, syntax, semantic distribution, syntax, lexeme, component, derivative lexeme, syntactic relationship, composition method, grammatical relation, atomic predicate, morphological means.

I. INTRODUCTION

The grammatical relation among the components of compound word remains its static position, whether it is used in the sentence or independently. Of course, the phrase is born in the speech. After this, according to the request of large syntax, the relation among its components becomes dynamic. In the most cases, the syntactic relation among the components of compound word becomes in the adjective - defining model: qizil gul, oq olma. It proves that the syntagma can equalize compound words. We can see the status of syntagma not only in compound words, but also in all formed-words. By the way, F.de.Sossur comment formed-words as a syntagma. Lire-o’qimoq, relir-qayta o’qimoq [1: 155]. We have just mentioned above about the comment of the english scientist, G.Marchand. In this case, we may compare compound word with sentence: bu gul qizil (this flower is red), sinfdosh (class-mate) – phrase - bir sinfda o’quvchilar (pupils in the same class) - ular bir sinfda o’qishadi (they study in the same class). Yet, this opportunity is not witnessed in each compound word. For example: the pair words like ota – ona (parents), sabzi - piyoz (carrot - onion) is not compared with sentence. We can speak about syntactic relation only by semantic distribution. In accordance with the claim of A.Gulomov, the compound word is characterized on the basis of a definite lexical meaning – a certain complicated notion and a separate formation of grammatical and phonetic structure. This implies that it is one word and there is no grammatical connection between its components – parts. (but there is a semantic connection) [2: 3]. The view of A.Gulomov can be agreed with, particularly, it is essential that there exist a semantic connection between the components of compound words. The words which form certain relationships in the process of word formation are to be within the frames of semantic distribution. However, it seems that the scientist’s view about absence of grammatical connection, namely, semantic connection, between the components of words needs a little proof, since when we address to the inner structure of compound words, we can observe the existence of above mentioned microsyntactic relationship as attributive-defining, object – predicative, adverb – predicative and others between their components. In our viewpoint, the meaning expressed in compound words is accepted in a certain separate state which cannot be divided into parts. From the point of syntax, it can be assumed that the components of compound words are in a hidden connection. In this turn, the term mentioned above as predicate can be used [3:3]. A.Gulomov presents the following view in his research: “Semantic and formal connection – common features of formation of compound words remain the same. However, this connection can become unnoticeable as the result of different factors (for example, due to phonetic change, the process of simplicity): тоғолча: то-ғол-ча – тоғ-олча… [2: 33]. In our opinion, this idea of A.Gulomov is completely true, as it is undeniable that there is semantic and formal syntactic connection between the components of compound words. Even phonetic features of a word cannot prevent this connection. In this case we can observe both semantic

2101 ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 7, (2020), pp. 2101-2103 and syntactic connections vie the inner structure of a word. If the components of a compound word relate via the means of affix, the syntactic connection between them does not require explanation, but there is the presence syntactic linkage between the components of compound words which are connected without affixes. For instance, if we pay attention to the word ўқ илон, we can see that the components of this compound word are connected through the means of semantic valence. In other words, semantic distribution provides simultaneously syntactic connection [3:3]. Sh.Rahmatullayev uses the notion of syntagma when he gives information about compound words. However in this situation syntagma is used not for formed- words but for the device which the formation of the words depends on. The scientist emphasize about it that: ,,Most compound words become lexeme which is equal to syntax, as a result of progress gets the level of compound word. In the same way, the structure of compound noun based on available template can not be denied. In instance, mingoyoq may be said that it is formed on the basis of historically known type syntax, then it becomes a lexeme, but the compound noun like uchburchak( triangle), which appears recently, is formed directly based on the template of making compound noun without passing the process,, from syntagma to lexeme [4: 260]. It is obvious that Sh.Rahmatullayev describes compound nouns as formed particles formed on the basis of syntax. From this way, the conception of syntax given differs from the syntagma of Sossur. Because he describes the formed-word as a kind of syntax. We can see the feedback like it in the theory of S.O.Kartsevskiy too. According to it, formed-words like вода- воз, медвеж- онок are considered as a syntax [5: 63]. Sh.Rahmatullayev understands compound nouns as a formed- particle which results from the mixture of word and lexeme. In this case, lexeme is consider as the part of compound noun which means lexical: Kattaqo’rg’on - the first component of this compound noun is katta- word, the second component- qo’rg’on is a lexeme [4:261]. The formed lexeme is formed in the mixture of these 2 words. Sh.Rahmatullayev correctly noted that there are strong similarity to free-combination in compound nouns like buloqboshi, karvonboshi, sinfboshi which comes with possessive affix. Moreover, the scientist has remarkable comment stating about the syntactic relation which consists of the relationship of subject – predicate, object, adverbial and predicate with apostrophe which is observed in compound nouns [4: 261]. A.Hojiyev is not positive about forming a word with a composition or syntactic method, that is formation of compound words, in uzbek language. ,,In all of works concerning the word formation of uzbek language the method of the composition of word formation is recorded and it is described as a productive method of word formation. However, if we approach directly to this situation from the side of own materials of uzbek language, we can see that there is nothing to call,, the method of composition [6: 8]. According to the opinion of A.Hojiyev, 2 independent words are combined in the grammatical form and the grammatical relationship between them is noticeable in uzbek language. As the result of this connection phrase or sentence forms but not syntactic unit, this is lexeme [6: 8]. According to the opinion of the scientist, in the words suvchi, tekisla ,,-chi’’ and ,,-la’’ are word- making supplement, there are not the situation like it in the words called ,,compound words’’. There is not a word-making unit in the words such as qirq burun, it burun, boyo’g’li, qirq og’ayni and so on. However, they do not have word- making composition and these words have a formation method, it must not be said that they was made in one way [6:9]. It is obvious that the objections of A.Hojiyev about the method of composition are serious. Even it may seen difficult to react to it. If in the opinions of scientists of the foregoing it has been said that there is not grammatical relation between the components of compound word, but A.Hojiyev, on the contrary, notes that there is grammatical relationship at the moment, so in this case, we should speak about word unit and sentence, not about compound words. We completely agree with the statement of A.Hojiyev which is about the existence of grammatical relation between word components. In our opinion, the proportionality compound words to word unit and sentence is scientifically based. Yet, it seems that we should consider that the grammatical relation between the components and compound words is not live. As we mentioned, it is not grammatical relation with dynamic character, but with static character. We may fully

2102 ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 7, (2020), pp. 2101-2103 acknowledge it when we pay attention to the words that we have been studying as a compound words: Keldiyor, Soykeldi. For evidence of our opinion, the comment of Y.S.Maslov about it deserves attention. According to it, the grammatical relation between the components of compound words has static character, the relation like it we can say ,,the relation became stone’’, fossilized [7: 230]. It is difficult to compare the word given with the sentence which is literal at the moment. Because sentence reacting reality expresses predictability. Now we can not speak about it in compound word. In this case, the phenomenon of atomar predictability is seen. Moreover, when we pay attention to the meaning of the compound words, we see their meaning a holistic sense and coming in indivisible condition. Their proportionality to word unit or sentence is natural. It shows the inner structure of word. If we theoretically approach to the description of issue from the side of small syntactic principles, it does not matter, whether they were formed, or not. Since, only the specific object of investigation – compound noun is implied. We have to say that the formation of compound words in west languages and in russian language is not different from uzbek language. They also mentioned that compound word forms by the addition of 2 stems and in this case, morphological means which forms them does not take part in it. Thinking about it, E.L.Ginthburg said that in this situation the participation of morphologic indicators is not necessary [8: 202].

II. CONCLUSION

In general, the formation of compound word is become by the addition of 2 words, in our opinion, to call them, formed’ is close to the trust. The morphological means may not participate in this process because the words which begin interact is based on the semantic distribution. Because there is not semantic distributive relation among the words which come side by side. Because of it, in most cases, the derivation of compound nouns has zero operator. So, we may compare the semantic distribution with zero operator. However, the semantic distribution also is not always a mean derivative means. There may be morphological means which links their components in some compound word. For example, we can see there is -I possessive affix in the formed particle so’z boshi. Moreover, we can also imagine the affix -ning of the genitive case which comes stealthily. If we think the beginning of the word as a phrase, then we can see that its components is being linked in the method of adjustment. So it is difficult to come to the summary that the morphological means does not take part in the linking of the compound word.

REFERENCES 1. Saussure F.de. Proceedings in linguistics. –M., 1977. 2. Gulomov A. Word formation // Uzbek language grammar. Morphology. -Tashkent, 1975.Page 33. 3. Turobov A.M. The linguistic nature of compound words. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD) Volume: 5 | Issue: 3 | March 2020 - Peer Reviewed Journal 4. www.eprajournals.com |481 | 5. Rahmatullayev Sh. Noun // Uzbek grammar. Morphology.-Tashkent, 1975, 260 pages. 6. Turniyazov N.Q. Linguistics text. -Samarkand: SamSIFL, 2004. 7. Hojiev A. Uzbek word formation system. –Tashkent, 2007. 8. Maslov, Yu.S. Introduction to Linguistics. –M., 1975. –S. 230. 9. Ginzburg E.L. Syntactic typology of complex words (Internal syntax of additions) // Problems of structural linguistics. –M., 1968. –S. 202. 10. Turniyazov B.N. “About morphological causation”. Word Art № 6 (2019) 11. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9297-2019-6-4 12. Makhmudov N. Lexical treasure of language and the linguistic picture of the world. Word Art №1.2018.P.18-27 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9297-2018-l-2 14. Juraeva B.M. Place of proverb in the system of stable units. Word Art №1.2019.P.20-28 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9297-2019-1-3