CC BY
17http://www.franklang.ru/df/Lovecraft_At_The_Mount ains_Of_Madness_M.pdf
13. Shirley J. The Haunting of Hill House [] / Shirley J. _[Електронний ресурс] / J. Shirley - Режим
доступу http://1800homechat. /Jackson_Shirley_-
_The_Haunting_of_Hill_House.pdf
14. Stocer B.. Dracula [Електронний ресурс] / B.Stocer. - Режим доступу:
http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/Dracula.pdf
Kalandarov Aybek Ruzimbaevich
Senior scientific researcher Urgench State University Department of English language and Literature
GENERAL PECULIARITIES OF COMPARATIVENESS IN UZBEK LANGUAGE
Summary. This article is devoted to the analysis of the ways of the expression of comparativeness. The main attention is paid to the expressive ways of the category of comparativeness in Uzbek language in comparison with in English. Therefore, expressive means of comparativeness were identified in the process of illustrating the ways of expression of this category in Uzbek language. The theories offered in the article are proved with the help of the examples taken from the literal works of Uzbek writers.
Key words: comparativeness, expression, lexical, morphological, syntactical, similarity, dissimilarity, likeness, conjunction, category.
Actuality of the theme of investigation. The elements expressing comparativeness are widely used in Uzbek and English languages. Comparative analysis of sentences in which comparativeness is expressed, identifying their isomorphic and allomorphic peculiarities are considered as actual tasks and the investigations in this field give the possibility to illustrate the syntactic position of the category of comparativeness in different structured languages. Analyzing the category of comparativeness by such linguistic methods contributes the development of the courses like theoretical and practical grammar, comparative typology.
A review of international research on the theme of research. The category of comparativeness has always been paid attention in the world linguistics. In learning this category the research works by the linguists who worked out on the materials of Indo European and Turkic languages as V.N. Jigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik, L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Shtelling, B.A. Ilysh, B.S. Khaimovich, V.Sh. Hakimova, L.A. Petrochenko, H.O. Federyaeva, A.V. Nikolaeva, O.V. Kravets, E.A. Zarudneva, R.M. Bolgarova, S.A. Popova, S.P. Kaleva, Chris Kennedy are worth attention.
It is possible to observe that there are various approaches in investigating comparativeness as a category. Specially, comparativeness was not learned as a separate category in some sources. Only the speech was gone about the comparing of two objects when discussing comparative degrees of adjectives and adverbs.
In some sources comparativeness was commented as a separate category. For instance, V.Sh Hakimova carried out her investigation on expressive ways of comparativeness and comparative constructions in Bashkir language. O.V. Kravets investigated the structure of functional-semantic field of comparativeness and micro fields of similarity and non-similarity in Russian language.
A.V. Nikolaeva learned the role of comparativeness in a language and the structure of
comparative functional-semantic field in English language. L.A. Petrochenko and N.O. Federyaeva approached the expressive ways of comparativeness in modern English from logical view point. E.A. Zarud-neva approached comparative constructions in English and Russian languages in the level of cognitive linguistics. R.M. Bolgarova learned the expressive ways of comparativeness in Russian and Tatar languages from logical and syntactic view points. Chris Kennedy carried out his investigations on comparative constructions in English.
The term comparativeness is not almost come across in Uzbek linguistics. Because the category of comparativeness has not been investigated yet in Uzbek language. But some information can be found about affixes, conjunctions, particles expressing comparativeness in the book volumes "O'zbek tili grammatikasi (Grammar of Uzbek Language)".
The aim of the research is to analyze the expressive ways and expressive means of the category of comparativeness in Uzbek language in comparison with in English.
The tasks left to be investigated:
- to collect examples belonging to comparativeness from Uzbek literature;
- to classify them according to the ways of expression;
- to analyze the means expressing comparative-
ness;
- to compare the expressive ways of comparativeness in the two non-related languages.
The main content of the article
The category of comparativeness is characterized similarly in English and Uzbek languages as this category owns a universal character in all languages. It means that when comparativeness is expressed in Uzbek language characters of two objects - compared and etalon objects are compared with each other like in English. And this character is basically expressed by adjectives or adverbs. For example:
Shaxta tagi jahannamdek qorong'i (MA, 459).
Berardan ko'ra olari ko'proq (MA, 642).
As there is a possibility of expression of comparativeness, there is a field of comparativeness in Uzbek language and in its turn this field is separated into two micro fields - fields of similarity and dissimilarity. This will be illustrated in the following examples:
Bizning farzandimiz ham Me'mordek bo'lsin (MA, 88).
Siz Nasrullaxonni mendan ko'ra yaxshiroq bilasiz (TMQ, 48).
If the occurence of the process of comparativeness of two objects in the above two micro fields is considered as a common character in the two - English and Uzbek languages, the ways of expression of this category are different in these languages. In English comparativeness is expressed only in a lexical way - by the help of conjunctions or words like "as, as ... as, like, as if, as though, like, than, the same as, different etc.". But in Uzbek this category is expressed in three ways -in a lexical, morphological and syntactical ways. Further we observe the three methods of expressing com-parativeness in Uzbek language.
The conjunctions "nisbatan, qaraganda, ko'ra, kabi, singari, qatori, yanglig', misoli"; the adjectives "o'xshash, monand, yaqin, teng, barobar, bir xil, birdek"; the verbs "o'xshagan, o'xshamoq, farq qilmoq, qiyoslanmoq, bo'lmoq"; the nouns "farq, o'xshashlik, nusxa" and the reflexive pronoun "o'zi" are considered as the means which express comparativeness in a lexical way.
The conjunctions "qaraganda, nisbatan, ko'ra" are the means which participate in the micro filed of dissimilarity. By the help of these conjunctions dissimilar side or difference of one object or an action is shown from another one. About it there are such ideas in scientific sources: "The meaning of comparing can be expressed with the combination of nouns in the form of cases of "chiqish" and "junalish" with one of the words "ko'ra, nisbatan, qaraganda" and a simple degree adjective" [2, 152]. One of the most important means which form comparative form of an adjective is the suffix "-roq" in Uzbek language. But this is not considered as important means expressing comparativeness. The meaning comparativeness is realized in a context. We can give the following structures of sentences for the comparative degree:.
...ga qaraganda (nisbatan) ...roq - uyga qaraganda ayvon yorug'roq, dengizga nisbatan ko'l kichiukroq;
...dan ko'ra (ham) ...roq - shahardan ko'ra dala salqinroq [3, 612]. So, adjectives or adverbs which come after these conjunctions can be in both forms -either in simple or comparative degree forms. For instance:
Ikki yurtning do'stlashuviga xizmat qilishdan ko'ra savobroq ish yo'q (TMQ, 84).
Men boshqalarga nisbatan ancha pokiza odamman (MA, 469).
There is a possibility of dissimilarity's expression in a sentence without the above conjunctions. In this situation the comparative meaning of objects and actions is understood from the meaning of a sentence
and the noun or verb which come after the adjective is used in the case "chiqish" [1, 102].
Uning kasalni yo'qlashdan muhimroq ishlari boshidan oshib yotibdi (TMQ, 64).
U Zavrakni o'z og'asidan ham a'lo ko'radi (MA, 353).
We cannot put the suffix "-roq" which forms the comparative degree form of an adjective among the important means expressing comparativeness. Because we have observed above that comparativeness can be expressed without this suffix and it can be formed by only conjunctions and the suffix of the case chiqish "dan". But the expression of comparativeness with the help of the suffix "-dan" is not lexical but a morphological method.
The conjunction "kabi" means comparing the similarity of objects. For instance:
Otning ko'zlarida huddi egasiniki kabi o't chaqnab ketdi (O'HN, 56).
The conjunctions "singari, yanglig'", the words "misol, misoli, qatori" can be used as synonyms to the conjunction "kabi" in this meaning. But the word "misoli" can come before the etalon object in a sentence when expressing comparativeness.
G'ulomqodir misoli sher olishdi (TMQ, 182).
The conjunction "singari" is used with different verb forms and expresses the similarity between actions and situations. For example, "yo'talgan singari tovush eshitildi" [3, 545]. Although the conjunction "yanglig'" is considered as archaic it is being used in proze works on the basis of stylistic demands.
The word "qatori" differs with its one peculiarity from the above synonyms i.e. these conjunctions take all peculiarities of compared objects whereas the word "qatori" takes class character similarity into consideration. For example:
Me'mor boshqa ustodlar qatori saltanat oldida katta hurmatga ega (MA, 125).
The adjectives "o'xshash, monand, yaqin" and the participle "o'xshagan" also come with substantives in the "junalish" case and express the meanings of comparing and likening. Pay attention to the following examples:
U otasiga o'xshash cho'ziq yuzli edi (MA, 504).
U to'nkaga o'xshagan odam (MChA, 11).
Tanburi beqiyoslariga monand soz yo'q (MA,
114).
Dovudning bu lahzadagi ko'rinishi afg'on qumidagi suratiga juda yaqin edi (MChA, 31).
The adjectives "teng, barobar, bir xil, birdek" can also express similarity between objects but they don't always come with the substantives in the "junalish" case like the above adjectives. When they express comparativeness in a sentence they are used to liken actions or situations, and in some cases they fulfill the function of a predicate in a sentence. For example:
Ikkovlarining ham yuragi birdek tepardi (MA,
427).
Ular erkaklar bilan barobar davlatni boshqaradilar (MChA, 15).
Hamma yoqda xo'roz bir xil qichqiradi (MA, 393).
Inson umri yalt etib o'chgan uchqun bilan barobar (MA, 622).
The verb "o'xshamoq" expresses likeness between objects and the verb "farq qilmoq" expresses dissimilarity, but the verb "qiyoslanmoq" can express both. If the verb "o'xshamoq" is used as a finite verb when expressing comparativeness it appears as a predicate of a sentence. If it is used as a participle it expresses likeness between the actions modified by the predicate of the sentence. For example:
Uloq ikki ot o'rtasidagi ko'prikka o'xshardi (O'HN, 57).
Shu kimsa qilg'ilikni qilib, keyin kaklikka o'xshab boshini qumga tiqib yotaveradi (MA, 500).
The verb "bo'lmoq" is used with comparative substantive combinations as a link verb. This kind of construction is considered as participle characterized construction from the formative view point and noun characterized construction from semantic view point [4, 184]. For example:
Lolalar qirlar ustida gilam bo'lib turardi (MA, 119).
Har bir mag'lubiyat unga azroilning ogohlantirishi bo'lib tuyulardi (TMQ, 16).
The nouns "o'xshashlik" and "farq" the first one expresses likeness, the latter expresses unlikeness between objects and they are often used as a subject of a sentence. For example:
Nizomiddin bilan Xudododbek o'rtalarida bir o'xshashlik zohir (MA, 55).
Bizning o'zgalardan farqimiz shu (TMQ, 161).
The noun "nusxa" does not often take part in the expression of comparativeness. When it participates in a sentence expressing comparativeness it is used as a synonym to the adjective "o'xshash". But it comes with substantives in the common case not in the "junalish" case. For example:
U qozon nusxa baxmal do'ppisini bostirib oladi (O'HN, 86).
The reflexive pronoun "o'zi" is also considered as means expressing strong comparativeness. It is often used with the suffix "-gina" in order to emphasize the meaning. As this pronoun is always used with a possessive suffix (o'z-i) when expressing comparativeness the word which comes before it expressing etalon object is used in the form of possessive case. For example:
U Munkaxonning huddi o'zi edi (MA, 220).
Bu xona do'zaxning o'zginasi (MChA, 65).
Comparativeness is formed with the help of the suffixes like "-day (dek), -dan, -simon, -larcha" when it is expressed in a morphological way.
The suffixes "-day, -dek" are added to the words which belong to nouns, adjectives, verbs and pronouns and are considered as very active word forming suffixes in making new adjectives or adverbs from the above mentioned parts of speech. The suffix "-day (dek)" may be a short variant of the suffix "-dayin". Because we can come across the usage of "-dayin" instead of "-day (dek)" in the language. This suffix is characterized with various semantic and stylistic peculiarities.
When the suffix "-day (dek)" is added to nouns it expresses such kind of features like size, quantity,
form, outlook, smell, taste by the way of comparing the object which is expressed by the stem and it is generally widely used in order to emphasize literal descriptive meaning, exaggeration, figurative and expressive meanings: no'xatdek (marvarid), qanddek (mastava), muzdek (suv), tog'dek (yigit), oydek (juvon), zig'irdek (bola) etc. [3, 278].
So, we can say that the suffix "-day (dek)" is considered as a word forming suffix and as means of expressing comparativeness at the same time. As we have mentioned above it forms adjectives and adverbs from nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs and verbs. And we can say that the suffix "-day (dek)" is the most active among the means expressing comparativeness as this situation is more come across than others it is possible to offer lots of examples to such situation: Dunyoga qo'chqordek o'g'il keldi (MA, 728). Bu qog'oz kalomullodek mo'tabar (MChA, 104). Asadulla chog' ustida o'tirganday betoqat edi (TMQ, 91).
Afg'on hukumati bizga avvalgiday do'st bo'lib qoladi (TMQ, 51).
We have talked about expression of comparativeness by the suffix "-dan" above.
The suffix "-simon" which is used with nouns has the same meaning as the suffix "-day (dek)". Although the suffix "-larcha" is among these suffixes with its meaning it is different from "-simon" with its some features i.e. objects and their qualities are compared (likened) by the suffix "-simon" whereas actions and their manners are compared (likened) by the suffix "-larcha". For example:
Ko'zlari olma bargisimon yirik (MA, 512). Anvar axmoqlarcha iljaydi (O'HN, 31). The word "sifat" also takes part in expressing comparativeness among this synonymic line. This word is added to nouns and forms adjectives and at the result compound adjective will appear. But this expression is not morphological, it is included into lexical expression of comparativeness. For example:
Shersifat itlar ham cholning orqasidan ergashib borardi. (MA 282)
Words are used in the lexical expression of comparativeness and suffixes participate in the morphological expression of comparativeness whereas sentences take part in the syntactical expression of comparativeness i.e. adverbial clause of comparison will appear in this situation and this adverbial clause of comparison is considered as means of expressing com-parativeness.
Adverbial clauses of comparison compare some special parts of principle clause with some parts of adverbial clause. Subject, predicate, object or other parts of both clauses can be compared [4, 428].
Adverbial clause of comparison is linked with the principle clause by the suffix "-day (dek)", conjunctions "kabi, singari", proportional words "qanday- shunday, qancha - shuncha", the adjective "deganlaridek". So, the means "-day (dek), kabi, singari" can participate in the syntactical expression of comparativeness either. The difference is that they follow sentences in the syntactical expression, not words. For example:
Kal taroqni yaxshi ko'rganidek, bu xomkalla bahs-munozarani yaxshi ko'radi (MChA, 31).
Suv qalqisa loyqasi yuqoriga chiqqanday, zamon qalqiganidan buyon yomon ko'paydi (O'HN, 80).
In this situation the conjunctions "kabi, singari" can also be used instead of the suffix "-day (dek)". As for the proportional words "qanday -shunday, qancha -shuncha", one of them takes part in the composition of the principle clause and the other in the adverbial clause. For example:
Fayzullaning yuzida qanday ma'yuslik paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa, hozir ham o'shanday bir iroda bor edi (O'HN, 46).
Yosh bola bilmagan narsaga qanchalik qiziqsa, kap-katta odam ham shunchalik intilaveradi (O'HN, 53).
The tool "deganlaridek" expressing comparativeness is originally close to a sentence in which the subject is missing i.e. it is used in the meaning "ular deganlaridek" and it actively participates in linking an adverbial clause of comparison with a principle clause and always separated by a comma from principal and subordinate clauses. For example:
Mol egasiga o'xshamasa xarom o'ladi, deganlariday, Muhiddin ehtiyotkorlikda xo'jasidan qolishmaydi (TMQ, 23).
Olmoqning bermog'i bor, deganlariday, javob vizitlari ham bo'lib turadi (O'HN, 93).
Comparative conjunctions "go'yo, go'yoki" and identifying particles "huddi, naq" [2, 214] can also be used in the sentences in which comparativeness is expressed. But comparativeness can be expressed without them. That's why they are not included into the main means expressing comparativeness. They only serve to emphasize the meaning. For example:
Tol shoxlari huddi birov silkitayotganday silkinardi. - Tol shoxlari birov silkitayotganday silkinardi (O'HN, 58).
Asadulla qorong'ilikda gangib qoldi, go'yo qorong'ilik uning vujudini qoplaganday. - Asadulla qorong'ilik uning vujudini qoplaganday qorong'ilikda gangib qoldi (TMQ, 85).
Conclusion
The occurence of the process of comparativeness of two objects in the micro fields of similarity and dissimilarity is considered as a common character in English and Uzbek languages. But the ways of expression of this category are different in these languages. In English comparativeness is expressed only in a lexical way. But in Uzbek this category is expressed in three ways - in a lexical, morphological and syntactical ways. Words are used in the lexical expression of comparativeness and suffixes participate in the morphological expression of comparativeness whereas sentences take part in the syntactical expression of comparativeness. In this situation this adverbial clause of comparison is considered as means of expressing comparativeness.
List of used literatures:
scientific sources:
1. Mirzaev M., Usmonov S., Rasulov I. O'zbek tili. - Tashkent: O'qituvchi, 1978. - 256 p.
2. Tursunov U., Muxtorov J., Raxmatullaev Sh. Hozirgi o'zbek adabiy tili. - Tashkent: O'qituvchi, 1975. - 260 p.
3. O'zbek tili grammatikasi (Grammar of Uzbek language). Volume I, - Tashkent: Fan, 1975. - 612 p.
4. O'zbek tili grammatikasi (Grammar of Uzbek language). Volume II, - Tashkent: Fan, 1976. -560 p.
5. Qilichev E. Hozirgi o'zbek adabiy tili. -Bukhara: Bukhara State University Publishing House, 2001. - 228 p.
literal sources
MA - Mirmuhsin. Asarlar: 4 volumes. Volume 3. Me'mor: Chotqol yo'lbarsi: - Tashkent: Adabiyot va san'at, 1982. - 736 p.
MChA - Mirmuhsin. Chodrali ayol: Afg'on qissasi. - Tashkent: Adabiyot va san'at, 1980. - 120 p.
TMQ - Malik Tohir. Qaldirg'och. (novel) -Tashkent: Yosh gvardiya, 1987. - 240 p.
O'HN - Hoshimov O'tkir. Nimadir bo'ldi...: Stories. - Tashkent: Adabiyot va san'at, 1976. - 112 p.
Volik N.A.
Senior Lecturer at the Department of Russian Philology and Translation, Mariupol State University
Волик Наталия Анатольевна
старший преподаватель кафедры русской филологии и перевода, Мариупольский государственный университет
MODIFICATION OF RHETORICAL MODEL OF GENRE OF THE SOLEMN ODE TO THE POETRY OF G. R DERZHAVIN IN THE 18TH CENTURY МОДИФИКАЦИЯ РИТОРИЧЕСКОЙ МОДЕЛИ ЖАНРА ТОРЖЕСТВЕННОЙ ОДЫ В ПОЭЗИИ
Г.Р. ДЕРЖАВИНА XVIII ВЕКА
Summary: The article is devoted to the odd poetry of G.R. Derzhavin in the context of the rhetorical age of the XVIII century. Examples of modification of the rhetorical model of the solemn ode genre in Derzhavin's oeuvre are given. A comparative analysis of theoretical prescriptions for the odic genre in Derzhavin's "Discourse" and the directions of his precursors is carried out.
Key words: modification, genre rhetorical model, solemn ode, panegyric, genre synthesis.
