Semantic: Pragmatic Features of Compound Sentences in Modern English

Abstract

This article discusses the semantic-pragmatic features of compound words English and Uzbek languages. The structural-semantic classification of compound words from the point of view of comparative linguistics.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

A compound is a word composed of more than one free morpheme. In linguistics, a compound is a lexeme (less precisely, a word) that consists of more than one stem. According to linguist I.V. Arnold: "A compound word is a union of two or, more rarely, three bases, functioning as a single whole and distinguished in a sentence as a special lexical unit due to its integrity”[1]. Compounding, composition or nominal composition is the process of word formation that creates compound lexemes. That is, in familiar terms, compounding occurs when two or more words are joined to make one longer word. The meaning of the compound may be similar to or different from the meanings of its components in isolation. The component stems of a compound may be of the same part of speech – as in the case of the English word footpath, composed of the two nouns foot and path – or they may belong to different parts of speech, as in the case of the English word blackbird, composed of the adjective black and the noun bird. With very few exceptions, English compound words are stressed on their first component stem.

There are three different types of compound words: Closed form: Two words are joined together to create a new meaning (firefly, softball, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook). Hyphenated form: Words are joined together by a hyphen ishongan; life-long, bat-bling, daughter-in-law, over-the-counter, six-year-old). Open form: Words are open but when read together, a new meaning is formed (post office, real estate, full moon). Studying compound words offers a great opportunity to engage students in understanding the English language. It builds an interest in words and will help prepare students to learn prefixes, suffixes, and word roots. English compounds may be classified in several ways, such as the word classes or the semantic relationship of their components. On the contrary Uzbek compounds are short compounds. Ex: kuzoynak, atirgul, b?takuz, tokkaychi. The way of forming Uzbek and English short compounds are the same. There are three ways of forming short compounds. 1. The solid or closed form in which two usually moderately short words appear together as one. Solid compounds most likely consistsof short units that often have beenestablished in thelanguage for a long time. Ex: housewife, lawsuit, and wallpaper. Uzbek examples are suvilon, togolcha, oltingugurt, gultuvak. The hyphenated form in which two or more words are connected by a hyphen. Compounds that contain affixes, such as house-builder and single-mind[ed] [ness] but if these words are written in Uzbek they will be written without hyphen; single-mindedness - hurfikrlilik. Uzbek language is also rich in compounds. There are given different definitions for compounds in Uzbek. Well-known Uzbek linguist A.Hojiev notes that, the term "compound word" consists of more than one stem: achchiktosh, bilaguzuk, birdamlik, izhodbakhsh, khushmuomala, sotib olmok, olib kelmok, khar kachon, khar bir, khech kimsa, khech kaerda”[4]. A. Hojiev gives a definition of "compound word" in his dictionary of Linguistic terms as well: " Compound word - is a word, which contain a part with more than one lexical meaning: belbog, okuloq, gultozhikh?roz, erksevar, movie camera, ishlab chikarish etc.”2 In other words, a compound word possesses a single semantic structure. The meanly narrowed. being of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components, which is a rule; retain their lexical meanings of the components although their semantic range becomes considerablynarrowed. The lexical meanings of the components are closely fused together to create a new semantic unit with a new meaning that Is merely additive but dominates the individual meanings of the components. The semantic center of the compound is found in the lexical meaning of the second component which is modified and restricted by the lexical meaning of the first, e.g. hand-baggies essentially a bag carried in the hand for money, papers, face-powder, etc’; pencil–case is a case for pencils etc. The components are often stems of polysemantic words but there is no difficulty. Asa rule, of defining which of the multiple denotational meanings the stem retains in one or another compound word. Compound words with a common second component can serve as an illustration.

Let us take words a common second component, e. g. board - is the stem of a polysemantic word but it retains only one of its multiple denotational words the stem retains in each compound word; chess board it retains the denotational meaning of a wooden slab; in paste board, card board it can be traced to the meaning of ‘thick, stiff paper, in over board to’ a ship’s side’, in notice-board, foot-board, key-board and etc. The compound word ‘Board of Trade’ can be rendered into Uzbek ‘Savdo Vazirligi’, whereas the Uzbek word 'Vazirlik' is equivalent to the 'Ministry'.

Causative constructions are interesting for research, since they are predicative structures that convey a complex set of categorical meanings of cause, effect, and relationships that arise between centers of predicativity [6, p. 5]. To study causative constructions, different areas of science were used: comparative - typological. Despite the sufficient knowledge of causation, this term remains controversial and has many definitions, the main of which is the following: “Causativity is a complex, multifaceted category that reflects the actual connections between objects of the external world, marked and categorized by consciousness as causal, and takes its origins in the philosophical category of causality”. "Causality is a genetic connection of phenomena, in which one phenomenon - the cause, under certain conditions inevitably produces, gives rise to another phenomenon - a consequence (or action)". “The category of causality in its deep essence expresses the self-activity of matter, the ability of material things, phenomena to produce other things, phenomena. The reason can be either the nature of an external influence, refracted through the internal nature of the thing experiencing this impact, or the nature of the interaction of parts, elements, causing a change in the whole, system”. “The category of cause, first of all, reflects the action of one thing on another in accordance with their properties, and this action gives rise to a certain change of this other thing, according to the nature of the effect and the properties of another thing” [7,p.118]. “Causality is such a necessary connection between phenomena, in which one inevitably gives rise to another” [8, p. 9].

A. Potebnya gives the following definition of causality: “The concept of an action, like the concept of a subject and an object, is inseparable from the concept of a cause ... there is a cause, causing (action), caused (perfect, done): the reflection of an action on an object is caused by the action of the subject. Causality is composed of the action of the subject and the simultaneity or sequence of this action with the state of the object”. An adequate expression of the category of causality in the language is achieved with the help of lexical means and grammatical constructions. The result of any "cause" is a "consequence" and, considering the concept of "causative construction", it is also necessary to consider the concept of "consequence". B.N. Golovin defines the category of consequence as "real linguistic unity of grammatical meaning and the means of its material expression" [5, p 311]. These positions are held by K.G. Krushelnitskaya and N.I. Kovtunov, defining causation as a grammatical category of non-morphological type. The consequence is characterized as "what follows from something, the result of something, a conclusion, a necessary component of a causal relationship". The study of the linguistic units used to convey the reflected relations contributes to the identification of the characteristic features of these units associated with the linguistic interpretation of causality. Causal relationships are one of the most important semantic categories of natural languages. The problem of cause-and-effect relationships is very extensive and multifaceted. In the linguistic literature, there is another term that correlates with this category - causality. This term, like "causation", is closely related to the cause – a consequence, however, causality is a broader category that reflects the entire spectrum of connections between the events of reality and is implemented in the language through syntactic means. Causality is interpreted as conditionality - a complex interaction of conditions, goals, consequences, causes [3,p.19]. The semantics of the category of causation is very broad, as it intertwines causative, causal, resulting and target meanings. In general, the semantic meaning of causative constructions is based not only on the concept of "causality", but is also considered as "inducement" - from the point of view of the pragmatic approach. Indeed, a person with the help of language not only communicates his thoughts to an interlocutor or a group of people, but also encourages them to perform certain actions. And the motivation for action is always based on a social and psychological factor. When prompted to act, a person puts forward and realizes the purpose of his act, i.e. this process is a phenomenon of a logical and psychological order. The motivation to act also depends on the situations and conditions of communication, which are determined by the following moments of the act of communication: a) the relationship between the speaker and the addressee; b) the attitude of the speaker to the action; c) dependence of the addressee on the will of the speaker; d) lack of dependence between the speaker and the addressee. Important factors in the causation of an object by the subject are the conditions of communication, the status of the interlocutors, their age, the rules and peculiarities of etiquette inherent in this society and people. Thus, a strong variant of causation is used in direct proportion to the status of the participants in the causative situation, where the initiator (subject) is a senior in rank, position, or age. In such cases, the authors use verbs of the same semantic series, expressing an impulse, an order, in contrast to other semantic fields, expressing a request or permission. In other words, the use of causative constructions of various semantic fields is determined by the genre, context and style of the writer. [3, p. 90].

Thus, the linguistic category of causation is a complex multifaceted category that reflects the actual connections between the objects of the external world and is closely related to the concept of cause-and-effect relationships.

The semantic meaning of causative constructions is also considered as "incitement to action" Having a very rich range of means of implementation, the category of causation can be conveyed by a wide variety of incentive constructions, it can convey its meanings differently in word-building, lexical and contextual ways. The core of the functional-semantic field of causation is causative verbs, which are subdivided into functional and significant ones. The semantics of the causative constructions of the modern English language is very multifaceted and requires a comprehensive study.

References

[1] Arnold I. V. The English Word. – M.:B?. 1973. ?. 60. [2] Buranov J.B, Muminov A.A. Practical Course in English Lexicology. –T. “Ukituvchi” 1990. p. 54. [3] ????????? ?. ????????????? ?????. –?. ????????. 1992. 111 ? [4] ???????????? ?., ?????? ?. ????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ??????. –?., «???? ?? ???? ??????» 1961, 52 ?. [5] ?????? ?. ????? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ???????? ??????. – ???????, 1963, 144 ?. [6] Tereshina Yu.V. Intercategorical connections of causative constructions: Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. - Izvevsk, 2008. - 5 p. [7] Philosophical Encyclopedia T. 4. - M .: Nauka, 1967. - p. 370. [8] Fomicheva E.V. Means of expressing motivation in English in the light of semantics and pragmatics // Modern problems of science and education. - 2009. - No. 4. - p. fourteen. [9] Shuster A.G. The category of consequence and the means of its implementation on different tiers of syntax in the modern Russian language: Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. - Armavir, 2005. - 9 p.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Odilov Bahodir Bakhtiyarovich. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.