CC BY
9COMMONALITIES AND DISPARITIES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES Khudaykulova Feruza Kholovna Senior teacher at the Russian language department University of Tashkent for Applied Sciences https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10936008
ABSTRACT
This article elucidates the parallels and distinctions between English and Russian, acknowledged as two of the most globally significant languages. It underscores their commonalities and the abundance of lexicon shaped by historical interactions. The article further delineates the conspicuous utilization of articles in English, a linguistic trait conspicuously absent in Russian during the specified timeframe. Despite these linguistic disparities, the article delineates the inherent interconnectedness, demonstrating historical and cultural influences, as well as the preservation of distinctive language structures.
English and Russian, despite belonging to different language families (Germanic and Slavic, respectively), share some similarities and exhibit notable differences. Both languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, but English relies on the Latin script. Grammatically, Russian is an inflected language with a complex case system, while English primarily depends on word order for sentence structure. Despite distinctions, both languages borrow vocabulary from each other, reflecting historical and cultural influences. The absence of articles in Russian contrasts with English, where articles play a crucial role. Overall, while interconnected through historical interactions, the languages showcase unique linguistic features. Main body.
1. Linguistic Parallels: Unveiling Similarities Between Russian and English.
Languages serve as windows into the rich tapestry of cultures and histories, and examining their similarities provides intriguing insights into shared linguistic traits. Despite Russian and English belonging to distinct language families, they share several compelling commonalities: 1. Cognates and Loanwords:
A salient shared feature emerges in the prevalence of cognates and loanwords between Russian and English. Notable terms like 'университет' (universitet), 'ресторан' (restoran), and 'отель' (otel) have identifiable counterparts in both linguistic systems. This linguistic overlap serves as
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 1st April 2024 Accepted: 2nd April 2024 Published: 5th April 2024 KEYWORDS
commonalities, differences, English, Russian, grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, sentence structure.
a testament to historical interrelations and reciprocal influences between the two languages, facilitating linguistic recognition and comprehension for learners and speakers alike.
2. Word Order and Sentence Structure:
Word order in a sentence is the systematic sequence of words and phrases, possessing syntactic significance and fulfilling essential stylistic roles.[1]
Both Russian and English exhibit a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order, thereby streamlining the acquisition process for individuals navigating between these linguistic domains. Although divergent in grammatical intricacies, this mutual adherence to SVO enhances the prospects for cross-linguistic comprehension. For instance, in English, "She reads a book" follows an SVO structure, and in Russian, "Она читает книгу" (Ona chitaet knigu) similarly adheres to the SVO word order. These linguistic parallels contribute to a foundational understanding for learners transitioning between the two languages.
3. Grammar:
The Russian and English grammar is markedly different, but some categories are present in
both languages, which makes it a little easier to learn new rules. The singular and plural
category exists in both languages: игрушка / toy — игрушки / toys.
Both have numerals, both quantitative and ordinal: один / one, первый / the first.
Both English and Russian have comparative and superlative adjectives. Nevertheless, they are
formed differently.
Both languages have similar members of a sentence and parts of speech.
4. Alphabet Influence:
Despite the dissimilarity in alphabets (Cyrillic for Russian and Latin for English), commonalities exist. Similar shapes and sounds in certain letters ease the learning process for individuals familiar with either language.
At first sight, the Russian alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet, can seem very complicated, because the letters most are not at all like the familiar English Latin alphabet. However, that is the thing: most, but by no means all. First, there are letters in Russian that both look and sound the same as in English: A, K, M, O, T. Second, there are letters that look the same as in English but sound different: В, Е, Н, Р, С, У, Х. On the one hand, there is no need to learn new spelling, but on the other, there is a risk of mispronunciation - be careful. [2]
5. Borrowed Cultural Concepts:
Both Russian and English languages incorporate borrowed terms to express cultural phenomena that lack direct equivalents in their respective native lexicons. For instance, the Russian term 'самовар' (samovar) and the English term 'ballet' exemplify this cross-cultural exchange. The term 'samovar' denotes a traditional Russian metal container for heating water, while 'ballet' signifies a classical dance form with French origins. These borrowed terms reflect the enrichment of both linguistic realms through cultural interactions and the assimilation of diverse concepts. Famous lexicologist and lexicographer Professor G.N. Sklyarevskaya notes that "rarely linguists can observe such a rapid turn of linguistic evolution". [3] Moreover, according to the words of L.A. Verbitskaya "language is not just a system of signs, but an instrument for organizing the life of society and a person. Language is the focus and expression of the entire folk life, its spirit and current state. What is the language - such is the person, the same is the society". [4]
6. Globalization Impact:
English, serving as a ubiquitous global lingua franca, has significantly influenced languages globally, including Russian. The incorporation of English loanwords into contemporary Russian serves as a tangible manifestation of the continuous linguistic discourse within our interconnected and globalized world.
For instance, terms like 'маркетинг' (marketing) and 'интернет' (internet) in Russian illustrate the integration of English vocabulary into the linguistic fabric, underscoring the impact of English as a pervasive force in shaping modern languages. This phenomenon reflects the dynamic nature of language evolution in response to global interactions. The linguistic parallels between Russian and English offer a captivating exploration of the interconnectedness of diverse languages. From shared cognates and word order to the influence of globalized communication, these languages exemplify the dynamic nature of linguistic evolution. Exploring these similarities not only enhances language learning but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the intricate threads that bind different cultures through the medium of language.
2. Contrasting Linguistic Landscapes: Differences Between Russian and English Languages.
Languages, as intricate and diverse systems of communication, bear the imprints of unique cultures and histories. Russian and English, stemming from different language families, exhibit striking differences in various linguistic aspects. This article delves into these distinctions, drawing insights from scholarly sources to illuminate the disparities between the two languages:
1. Grammatical Structure:
A distinctive contrast emerges in grammatical structure between Russian and English. Russian, characterized as a synthetic language, imparts information through inflections, modifying word endings to indicate grammatical relationships. In contrast, English adopts an analytic structure, depending on word order and auxiliary verbs for semantic expression. For example, in Russian, the word "дом" (dom) meaning "house" can be inflected to "дома" (doma) to signify the locative case, indicating "at home." In English, the sentence "She reads a book" relies on word order, with the subject "She," verb "reads," and object "book" following a specific sequence to convey the intended meaning. This grammatical distinction underscores the varied approaches these languages employ for syntactic construction.
Another difference between English and Russian is that the Russian language doesn't have articles like "the" or "a" while English does have them (e.g., a book, a house, the book). So, you will have to learn when to use them (which can be tricky). The word for "you" can also be confusing because it changes depending on how formal you want your speech to sound—and there's no equivalent for the pronoun "it". [5]
2. Verb Aspect System:
Russian features a sophisticated verb aspect system, differentiating between perfective and imperfective aspects, thereby influencing the nuances of actions. In contrast, English adopts a simpler approach, utilizing auxiliary verbs to convey similar distinctions and express temporal relationships. For example, in Russian, the verb "писать" (pisat') in the imperfective aspect indicates ongoing or habitual writing, while "написать" (napisat') in the perfective aspect conveys the completion of writing. In English, comparable distinctions are achieved through auxiliary verbs, as in "She is writing a letter" (imperfective) and "She has written a letter"
(perfective). This grammatical disparity delineates the distinct strategies employed by these languages in conveying temporal nuances. 3. Alphabetic Scripts:
Noteworthy dissimilarity arises in the alphabetic scripts employed by Russian and English. Russian utilizes the Cyrillic alphabet, comprised of 33 characters, whereas English adopts the Latin alphabet, consisting of 26 characters. This variance not only affects the script but also influences the sounds represented by specific letters. For instance, the Russian Cyrillic letter corresponds to the English Latin letter "Zh," indicating a distinct phonetic representation. The dissimilarities in alphabetic scripts contribute to the distinct phonological characteristics of each language, underscoring the visual and auditory distinctions inherent in their written forms.
Here are additional examples to illustrate the differences in alphabetic scripts between Russian and English:
1. Russian Cyrillic letter T" corresponds to English Latin letter "G."
2. Russian Cyrillic letter "n" corresponds to English Latin letter "P."
3. Russian Cyrillic letter "O" corresponds to English Latin letters "F."
4. Russian Cyrillic letter "ffl" corresponds to English Latin letters "Sh."
5. Russian Cyrillic letter corresponds to English Latin letters "Ts." 4. Phonological Differences:
Russian demonstrates a nuanced system of consonant palatalization, significantly impacting pronunciation. In contrast, English places emphasis on stress patterns, highlighting vowel sounds. These phonological distinctions give rise to disparate speech patterns in the two languages. For instance, in Russian, the consonant "t" (t) undergoes palatalization before the soft vowel "e" (e), producing a sound similar to "Tb" (t'). Conversely, English relies on stress patterns to differentiate words, as seen in the contrasting stress placements in "REject" and "reJECT," impacting the pronunciation and overall phonetic structure of the language. These phonological nuances underscore the diverse articulatory features characterizing Russian and English speech.
The universal syllable template accepted by most phonologists is given. Note that small sigma (a) is shorthand for 'syllable'. [6]
a
onset rhyme
nucleus coda
Here are additional examples to elucidate the phonological differences between Russian and English:
1. Russian Consonant Palatalization:
- "карта" (karta) - map
- "крыша" (krysha) - roof
The consonants "т" (t) and "ш" (sh) undergo palatalization before the soft vowels, resulting in distinct phonetic nuances. 2. English Stress Patterns:
- "CONvert" vs. "conVERT"
- "REfuse" vs. "reFUSE"
The change in stress patterns in English can alter the pronunciation and meaning of words, emphasizing the importance of stress in phonological distinctions. These examples illustrate how consonant palatalization and stress patterns contribute to the phonological diversity between Russian and English. 5. Vocabulary and Cultural Nuances:
The lexicons of Russian and English intricately mirror the distinctive cultural contexts of their respective speakers. Disparities in vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and cultural nuances serve as poignant indicators of the historical and social evolution inherent to each language. For example, the Russian term "дача" (dacha) encompasses the concept of a countryside retreat, laden with cultural significance, while the English term "weekend getaway" conveys a similar idea but with cultural nuances specific to English-speaking societies. These linguistic distinctions underscore the rich cultural tapestry embedded within the vocabularies of Russian and English, reflecting the diverse experiences and histories of their speakers.
Basic Differences
Russian
1. Inflexional, i.e. it has a wide system of case word forms, complex grammar and syntactical meanings are synthesized in one word: созвониться
English
1. Analytical, i.e.
complex meanings are expressed with the help of several words:
to make an agrrement that one of the interlocutors will make a call
Here are additional examples highlighting vocabulary and cultural nuances in Russian and English:
1. Russian Cultural Term:
- "Товарищ" (tovarishch) - a term historically used to address a comrade or friend, reflecting a socialist cultural context.
2. English Cultural Term:
- "High tea" - a British term referring to a substantial evening meal, showcasing cultural dining practices.
3. Russian Idiomatic Expression:
- "Белая ворона" (belaya vorona) - directly translated as "white crow," it signifies an individual who stands out or is different from the norm in Russian culture
4. English Idiomatic Expression:
- "Piece of cake" - an English idiom indicating something that is very easy to accomplish, reflecting cultural attitudes toward simplicity.
These examples underscore the linguistic diversity shaped by cultural contexts, providing insights into the unique expressions and perspectives embedded in the vocabularies of Russian and English.
Exploring the differences between Russian and English languages unravels the intricate tapestry of linguistic diversity. From grammatical structures to script variations, these distinctions shape the unique identities of each language. Conclusion.
In summary, English and Russian, stemming from a common Indo-European linguistic origin, manifest conspicuous parallels alongside noteworthy distinctions. Variances in grammar, phonetics, and script are indicative of unique cultural and historical influences that have shaped each language distinctly. Despite these differences, both languages play indispensable roles as essential instruments for global communication, facilitating cross-cultural understanding and
REFERENCES:
1. Solieva, Z. B., & Javburieva, R. USE OF GAMES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. УЧЕНЫЙ
XXI ВЕКА, 18.
2. Солиева, З. Б. ПРОБЛЕМА ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИЧЕСКОЙ ОБРАБОТКИ СЛОВА И
СПОСОБЫ ЕЕ РЕШЕНИЯ. УЧЕНЫЙXXIВЕКА, 27.
3. Eshmatova, Y. (2022). Анализ человеческой психики в повестях. ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ
ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu. uz), 23(23).
4. Эшматова, Ю. (2022). ПРОБЛЕМЫ ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННОГО ПСИХОЛОГИЗМА В
УЗБЕКСКОМ ЛИТЕРАТУРОВЕДЕНИИ. TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY
JURNALI, 2(11), 155-161.
5. Boymaxmatovna, E. Y. (2022). WRITER'S SKILL AND LANDSCAPE IMAGE. TA'LIM VA
RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI, 2(11), 143-146.
6. Eshmatova, Y. (2022). O 'ZGA TILLI GURUHLARDA SHE'RLARNING JANR
XUSUSIYATLARINI FARQLASHGA O 'RGATISH. ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu.
uz), 23(23).
7. Eshmatova, Y. (2022). УЗБЕК АЁЛИ РУХ,ИЯТИНИНГ ЁРИТИЛИШИДА ЯНГИ КИРРАЛАРНИНГ НАМОЁН БУЛИШИ. ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu. uz), 23(23).
8. MAMATQULOV, B. (2024). O 'ZBEKISTON JANUBIY VILOYATLARIDA SANOAT KORXONALARINING TASHKIL ETILISHI VA HUDUDLAR SANOATINING IXTISOSLASHUVI JARAYONINING TARIXIY TAHLILI (1930-1950 yy). News of UzMU journal, 1(1.2. 1).
9. Sherozovich, M. B. (2024). INDUSTRIAL MEASURES IN UZBEKISTAN 1925-1954 AND THEIR RESULTS (in the case of Kashkadarya and Surkhandarya regions). World scientific research journal, 24(1), 195-200.
10. Sherozovich, M. B., & Shuhratovna, M. N. (2024). DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD INDUSTRIES IN THE SOUTHERN REGIONS OF UZBEKISTAN: HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND CONSEQUENCES. World scientific research journal, 24(1), 188-194.
11. Sherozovich, M. B. (2024). CONFLICT SITUATIONS IN THE PROCESS OF TRAINING INDUSTRY PERSONNEL IN SURKHANDARYA AND KASHKADARYA REGIONS: HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS (1925-1950). ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ, 39(5), 221-225.
12. Sherozovich, M. В., & Shuhratovna, M. N. (2024). THE EMERGENCE OF THE GAS-SULFUR
INDUSTRY IN UZBEKISTAN AND ITS DEVELOPMENT HISTORY (IN THE EXAMPLE OF KASHKADARYA REGION). ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ, 39(5),
217-220.
13. Rustamkulovna, S. T. (2022). SOCIAL FACTORS OF ETHNOCULTURAL TOURISM IN UZBEKISTAN. Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(4), 622-626.
14. Сафарова, Т. Р. (2022). ЗАМОНАВИЙ ОЛИЙ ТАЪЛИМ ТИЗИМИДА ФАЛСАФАНИ УЦИТИШНИНГ ВАЗИФАЛАРИ ВА МУАММОЛАРИ. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 2(9), 657-664.
15. Сафарова, Т. Р. (2021). ВЛИЯНИЕ ПАНДЕМИИ COVID-19 НА СОСТОЯНИЕ ЭТНОКУЛЬТУРНОГО ТУРИЗМА В УЗБЕКИСТАНЕ. In Новые вызовы новой науки: опыт теоретического и эмпирического анализа (pp. 176-183).
16. Kholdarova, F. (2017). SOME ASPECTS OF NATIONAL PECULIARITIES IN POLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS. In Перспективы развития научных исследований в 21 веке (pp. 149-150).
17. Kholdarova, F. (2017). SOME ASPECTS OF NATIONAL PECULIARITIES IN POLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS. In Перспективы развития научных исследований в 21 веке (pp. 149-150).
18. Холдарова, Ф. Т. (2018). Стратегия повышения эффективности политических переговоров Узбекистана в регионе Центральной Азии. In Theory and practice of scientific
research (pp. 268-270).
19. Ugli, I. J. T., Tuxtabayevna, K. F., & Ugli, I. S. T. (2020). Comparison of Similes and
Metaphors in Translations (In Act of Beneficent Knowledge). International Journal of
Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(05).
20. Очилова, Г. А., Жумаева, Ш. С., & Курбонова, М. Б. (2019). Политика межнациональных отношений и толерантность в Узбекистане. Наука, образование и культура, (9 (43)), 15-18.
21. Жумаева, Ш. С., & Очилова, Г. А. (2019). ТВОРЧЕСКАЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ И ЕЁ
ГУMАНИСТИЧЕСKИЕ АСПЕКТЫ. Научное знание современности, (2), 5-10.
22. Навои, А. (2016). Проблема этических норм развития науки в трудах мыслителей средневековой Средней Азии. Молодой учёный, 6, 670.
23. Жумаева, Ш. С. (2023). АХБОРОТ ХАВФСИЗЛИГИ ВА МАФКУРАВИЙ ХИМОЯ. Educational Research in Universal Sciences, 2(5 SPECIAL), 286-290.
24. Suyunovna, J. S. (2023). The Culture of Reading as a Phenomenon of Spiritual Life. Best Journal of Innovation in Science, Research and Development, 2(5), 84-87.
25. Taxirovna, A. S. LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE TRANSLATION OF STORIES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS, 2023/2/c12.
26. Taxirovna, A. S. (2024). COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: FOCUSING ON TECHNIQUES THAT PROMOTE TEAMWORK AND SHARED KNOWLEDGE AMONG STUDENTS, SO 'NGI ILMIY TADQIQOTLAR NAZARIYASI.
27. Taxirovna, A. S. (2023). Lingua-cultural aspects of the translation of English and Uzbek stories, Current Issues of Bio Economics and Digitalization in the Sustainable Development of Regions (Germany).
28. Mamatkulov, B. (2021). Conflicts of the process of the industrial staff training in the soviet period. ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(10), 507510.
29. Mamatkulov, B. (2021, November). A New Interpretation of Industry in Uzbekistan
During Independence. In " ONLINE-CONFERENCES"PLATFORM (pp. 158-161).
30. Маматкулов, Б. (2023). O 'ZBEKISTONDA GAZ-OLTINGUGURT SANOATINING YUZAGA KELISHI VA UNING RIVOJLANISH TARIXI (QASHQADARYO VILOYATI MISOLIDA). Ижтимоий-гуманитар фанларнинг долзарб муаммолари/Актуальные проблемы социально-гуманитарных наук/Actual Problems of Humanities and Social Sciences., 3(12/1).
31. Suyunovna, J. S. (2023). Combination of Mythological, Religious and Philosophical Worldviews.
32. Алиева, З. Р. (2020). Роль дистанционного обучения в методике преподавания русского языка как иностранного. Молодой ученый, (35), 176-178.
33. Алиева, З. Р. (2024). ТЕОРИЯ РЕЧЕВОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ В КОНТЕКСТЕ
ПСИХОЛИНГВИСТИКИ. SCHOLAR, 2(5), 121-126.
34. Kakharova, D. S. (2020). CREATIVITY OF THE FUTURE TEACHER. Scientific reports of Bukhara State University, 4(2), 337-342.
35. Кахарова, Д. С. БУЛАЖАК УЦИТУВЧИНИНГ ИЖОДИЙ ИМКОНИЯТЛАРИ ТВОРЧЕСКИЙ ПОТЕНЦИАЛ БУДУЩЕГО УЧИТЕЛЯ CREATIVITY OF THE FUTURE TEACHER
Сaидовa Гулрух, Х^лим цизи.
36. Ахмедов, О. С. (2010). Лексико-семантические проблемы при переводе с английского языка налоговых и таможенных терминов. Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики, (1-2), 18-21.
37. Ахмедов, О. С. (2014). Калькирование в налоговой и таможенной терминосистеме узбекского языка. Вестник Челябинского государственного университета, (3 (332)), 1215.
