Substantial and Qualificative Indefinite Additive Syntaxema Options

Abstract

Syntactic units in indefinite pronouns were analyzed separately by syntax. Their categorical differential syntactic-semantic features were revealed, and on the basis of the features, depending on the position of indefinite pronouns in a sentence, substantial and qualificative indefinite additive syntactic variants were distinguished from noncategorical featutes. Various transformation methods have been used to define additive syntax variants. Addition and subtraction methods were used.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

In world linguistics, the problem of systematic study of the controversial issues of traditional syntax, comparative-functional analysis of the category of ambiguity using indefinite pronouns in the structure of the sentence, and the determination of the ontological nature of these phenomena, and the study of their interlinguistic relationship, has been in the constant attention of linguists. Also, from a pragmatic point of view, there is a need to identify the differential syntactic-semantic signs of language units that express the uncertainty of the actions being performed, as well as their communicative linguistics, the theory of speech activity, meaningful syntax, based on the materials of related and non-related languages. 

In this article, a comparative-functional analysis of indefinite pronouns in the structure of the sentence is done by dividing them into syntaxes according to their syntactic distribution as a non-nuclear subordinate component. The process of analyzing syntactic units into syntaxes is to identify the categorical differential syntactic-semantic features of the selected object and to prove the non-categorical differential syntactic-semantic features, their paradigmatic series, and their variants based on transformation methods, and interpret them visually.

In addition to the analyzed sentence, categorical and non-categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs in this sentence are studied by comparing them with syntaxemes in other sentences. One of the most important aspects is that the syntactic units in the sentence are divided into components and syntaxes based on the same syntactic relationship. The linguist O.G. Vetrova says that substantiality is one of the categorical syntactic-semantic signs, which is determined by contrasting it with other differential syntactic-semantic signs, namely, qualification and procedurality [1; 45-?.]. Qualification is also one of the categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs at the syntactic level, and its difference from procedurality and substantiality is that it indicates a general description of a substance or a process. This description can express qualitative, comparative and static. In the speech device, its lexical source is formed in a set such as adjective, qualified elements, number and noun. According to F.Usmonov, in English, "elements expressing qualification can be combined with very, how, rather, so, too and in Uzbek language with words like ????, ???, ??? based on the subordinating relation. If the qualification is expressed by a noun, it cannot be connected with demonstrative, possessive pronouns"[2; 119-?.].

It is not correct to associate the representation of all three categorical symbols with parts of speeches. That is why substantiality should not be replaced by nouns, because substantiality can be expressed by nouns, pronouns, adjectives, numbers, and even adverbs. When analyzing the speech device by dividing it into syntaxemes, it is taken into account that substantiality is expressed using different parts of speeches in both languages. They differ only by non-categorical differential syntactic-semantic features. When classifying the examples taken from works of art written in English and Uzbek languages, indefinite syntaxemes and their paradigmatic series were identified and compared within the framework of substantive and qualifying syntaxes from categorical symbols. It is known that the NP1 (nuclear predicative 1) component also represents the substantive indefinite agentive additive syntaxeme instead of indefinite pronouns: in English, elements expressing additively can be combined with else on the basis of a subordinate relation.

1. Something else grew in its place [EH, 266].

2. Someone else broke a window.

3. Someone else could do that job [N.H. 270].

About additive syntaxeme [Look at: 3; 197-?., 4; 228-?.].

U.Usmanov stated that in determining the object syntaxeme in these sentences, "...before determining the substantial object syntaxeme of the nuclear predicative 1 component, it is appropriate to determine the differential syntactic-semantic features of the syntactic units expressed in the place of the nuclear predicative 2"[5; 58-?.].

It is known that the syntactic units that replace the NP2 (nuclear predicative 2) component are one of the main parts in traditional grammars - participles. So, a participle is the main part that provides predicativeness in a sentence, and its expression has different morphological forms.

4. He was not someone else. He – substantially identifiable syntaxeme, was not someone – Substantial Indefinite expresses the negative syntaxeme of identification and includes the additive syntaxeme with the help of the else clause.

So, was not someone else – Substantial indefinite identifying negative additive syntaxeme. The syntax model of this sentence is as follows:

He was not someone else – SbId1*SbIndId2 NgAdd.

In general, when the sentence with an indefinite pronoun in the place of the nuclear predicative 2 is analyzed into syntaxemes, it represents the following non-categorical: indefinite identifying negative additive syntactic-semantic sign within the framework of substantiality from categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs. In addition to the syntaxemes defined above, it can be seen that indefinite pronouns express other non-categorical syntactic-semantic features in place of the non-nuclear subordinate predicative 1.

5. I’m getting someone else to look after you [N.H, 42].

6. They could get someone else to hunt them [E.H, 258].

In these sentences

someone else – It is determined that the substantive indefinite object represents the additive agentive syntaxeme:

I’m getting someone else – the object is additive

 someone else to look after you → someone looks after you → represents an agentive syntaxeme.

 So, someone else – substantive indefinite object additive agentive syntaxeme (SbIndObAddAg). 

In the sixth sentence, indefinite pronoun someone else substantive object shows a stative loaded additive indefinite syntaxeme. It can be explained as follows:

They could get someone else to hunt them → They could get someone else - expressing the object syntaxemes and is connected with the procedural action modal syntax on the basis of subordinate relation.

They could get someone else to hunt them → … someone else to hunt them → someone else hunts them – stativity loaded additive syntaxeme. Stativity is proved as follows:

someone else to hunt them → someone else is in a state of hunting… ???? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????????????? ????, ?????? ????? someone else ??????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????. ?????, someone else – SbObStAddInd. Since it is connected with the procedural stative syntax based on the non-nuclear predicative relation, the indefinite pronoun someone else represents the substantive object stative loaded additive indefinite syntax.

When analyzing the indefinite pronouns in the structure of the English sentence by dividing them into syntaxemes in the position of the nuclear predicative 2, the negative additive syntaxemes of non-categorical signs: indefinite identification were identified and analyzed within the framework of substantiality. A comparative analysis of the syntaxemes in English and Uzbek sentences in which indefinite pronouns represent non-nuclear dependent predicative 1 was performed. When we analyzed the indefinite pronouns by dividing them into syntaxemes, indefinite object additive, indefinite object additive agentive, stative loaded object additive indefinite syntaxemes were identified.

In the course of the analysis, it becomes clear that the non-categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs are clarified through the distributive relationship of indefinite pronouns using the contrast method of contrasting substantiality with qualification from categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs. In the example of the English language, the substantive indefinite object syntax is expressed using the indefinite pronouns someone, something, anybody anyone, anything, everything. Uzbek language sentence Substantial indefinite object syntaxeme is expressed using the following indefinite pronouns: ???????, ?????????, ????????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????????, ??? ???????.

From categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs, a number of studies have been conducted on qualitative and its non-categorical signs, but indefinite syntaxemes has not been observed within the scope of qualification. 

The paradigmatic series of the qualifying indefinite syntaxemes of the English and Uzbek languages, represented by indefinite pronouns in the sentence structure, is determined and comparatively analyzed.

We can see that the indefinite pronouns in the position of the non-nuclear subordinate component (ÑD) represent the following additive syntaxes.

A. Substantial Indefinite Object Additive Syntaxeme

The method of determining the object syntaxeme was proved in the previous section, and on this basis, the meaning of additive (addition) in the English sentence is expressed by adding the lexemes else or more to the indefinite pronouns in the substantive indefinite object additive syntaxeme:

1. You might think about someone else [E.H. 274].

2. She would probably w?nt to talk about something else eventually [N.H. 208].

3. He is not very happy about me seeing somebody else [N.H. 23].

4. I’ve never loved anyone else [E.H. 280].

5. I’ve never done a top of anything else [M.E. 159].

6. He must do something more than live dozed [M.E. 369].

7. No one had said anything more until they were back in camp [E.H. 252].

When the elements of else or more are added to indefinite pronouns, someone else, something else somebody else, something more sentences are used in participle form, anything else, anyone else, anything more is used in negative sentences.

In the Uzbek language, the substantive indefinite object additive syntaxeme is expressed by adding the adverb " ??? " before the indefinite pronouns in the sentence:

??????? ?????? ?????? ???, - ???? ????? ?????? ?????, ??? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????? [?. 309].

B. Substantive Indefinite Object Possessive Additive Syntaxeme

 You couldn’t force your way into someone else’s… [N.H. 62].

From the examples analyzed above, it is known that in the English language, the substantive indefinite object represented by indefinite pronouns in the place of the subordinate component in the syntax of the sentence, such as additive, possessive additive, were identified.

Within the substantive indefinite locative syntaxeme, locative additive, locative allative additive variants were defined. About the locative syntaxeme, G.S. Petrova conducted research in the framework of from+S in the structure of the English sentence and stated that it is possible to prove that the from+S model can be proved by replacing the from+S model with here, there adverbs using the transformation method [6; 14-?.]. In her monographic work, N.J. Sulaymonova supports the opinion of G.S. Petrova in determining locativeness [7; 64-?.]. But no comment has been made about the syntaxeme of the locative indefinite expressed by indefinite pronouns.

C. Substantial Indefinite Locative Additive Syntaxeme

As we noted above, additive syntaxeme is expressed by adding else to indefinite pronouns denoting place:

Will would be received when Marcus found a purpose to life somehere else [N.H.104].

In Uzbek language it is known that when determining the locative syntaxeme in a sentence, indefinite pronouns can be replaced by the same agreement form of the locative adverbs " ?? ????, ? ???? ":

D. Locative Allative Additive Indefinite Syntaxeme

?????? ???? ??? ?????????????, ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ????? → … ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ?????.

Within the framework of substantive indefinite comparative syntaxeme, variants of comparative additive, comparative total comitative additive syntaxemes were identified.

 In the structure of the sentence, the indefinite pronoun "anyone" is combined with "as" to express comparability. In its proof, it can be determined by replacing the as element with like:

He would as soon be in bed with her as anyone… [E.H. 284].

He would as soon be in bed with her as anyone → He would ... be in bed with her like anyone.

E. Substantial Indefinite Comparative Additive Syntaxeme

1. He was as entitled to a break  as anyone else [N.H. 125].

2. But how about if you were the same clothes and haircut an glasses as everyone else? [N.H. 110]

F. Substantial Indefinite Comparative Total Comitative Additive Syntaxeme

I’m getting as bored with dying as with everything else, he thought [E.H. 298].

As with everything else in the combination everything - means the total (total, all) syntaxeme, and everything else - means the additive syntaxeme, so this combination embodies the substantial indefinite comparative total comitative additive [SbIndCmpTlCmtAd] syntaxeme.

As a result of the analysis of the pronouns in the place of the non-nuclear subordinate component in English and Uzbek, the following variants of the substantial indefinite syntaxemes were determined: in the case of the English language, substantial indefinite object additive [SbIndObAdd], in Uzbek also substantial indefinite object additive [SbIndObAdd]. Substantial indefinite object syntaxeme options can be explained in the table as follows:

???? ???????????????? ???????, ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????????:  ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? [SbIndLcAdd], ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? [SbIndCmpAdd], ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??????? [SbIndCmpTlCmtAdd] ????????????? ?????? ???????. ????? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? [SbIndLcAlAdd]  ?????????? ?????????. ?????? ?????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????: In addition to these syntaxemes, the following semantic features were identified on the example of English and Uzbek languages: substantial indefinite locative additive [SbIndLcAdd], substantial indefinite comparative additive [SbIndCmpAdd], substantial indefinite comparative total comitative additive [SbIndCmpTlCmtAdd] syntaxemes were analyzed in English. Substantial indefinite locative allative additive [SbIndLcAlAdd] syntaxeme was also identified in the structure of the Uzbek language sentence. These defined syntaxemes can be explained as follows:

The explanation of these syntaxemes are given above in the text.

The following variants of the qualifying indefinite syntaxemes were identified based on the indefinite pronouns some and any instead of the non-nuclear subordinate component in the English sentence:

G. Qualifying Indefinite Quantitative Additive Syntaxeme

1. He didn’t want to tell any more lies [E.H. 106].
2. They don’t make them any more [E.H. 60].

H. Qualifying Indefinite Quantitative Additive Syntaxeme

1. ??? ????? ????, ??? ?????, ??? ????????? ?????-?????????? ???? [?.?.?. 11].
2. ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? [?.?. 180].

It was determined that the quantitative additive syntaxeme in the scope of the qualitative indefinite is expressed instead of the subordinate component of indefinite pronouns in the structure of the Uzbek language sentence. Qualifying indefinite syntaxemes can be explained in the table as follows:

Explanations of these symbols are as follows:

ÑD – non-nuclear subordinate component;

Qlf Ind – qualifying indefinite syntaxeme;

Qun – quantitative indefinite;

QunAd – quantitative additive;

In conclusion, the following can be noted by comparative analysis of categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs in the framework of substantiality and qualification in the place of a non-nuclear subordinate component in the structure of indefinite pronouns:

Additive (addition) of the indefinite syntaxeme of the object is expressed by adding the words else or more to the indefinite pronouns in English and is expressed by somebody else, something more, anything else, anything more. In addition to these, the variants of this syntaxemes in English are possessive, causal, comparative, qualitative, sociative; and quantitative, comparative, attributional, desiderative options were found in Uzbek language.

Substantial indefinite locative additive and its variants such as substantial indefinite comparative additive, substantial indefinite comitative additive and others have been identified in English. Substantial indefinite locative syntaxeme in the Uzbek language is defined as substantial indefinite locative allative additive syntaxeme. In English and Uzbek languages, the indefinite syntaxeme variants represented by indefinite pronouns within the scope of qualification from categorical signs were analyzed. In the example of the English language, the qualifying indefinite is the quantitative additive; On the basis of the Uzbek language material, a variant such as the qualitative indefinite quantitative additive was determined. Qualifying indefinite syntaxemes in the system of unrelated languages ??were determined based on the distributive relations of indefinite pronouns in the place of subordinate components, and various methods of the transformation method were used to prove them.

References

[1] ??????? ?.?. ???????????? ??? ??????????-????????????? ???????// ??????????????? ???????????? – 1981. ?????????????? ? ??????????? ?????????. ????. ???? ????. ???????? ???????????: – ??????: 1981. – ?. 44-49. [2] ??????? ?.?. ??????????-????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????? (?? ????????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????) / ????.????.?????.????. – ?????????: 2012. – 149?. [3] ????? ?.?. ?????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????? ??????????? // ????. ??-???. – ??????: 1970. - ?4 – ?. 68-80. [4] ???????? ?.?. ????????? ?????????????? ???????? “????????? ?????? + ?????????” ? ????????? ??????????? ? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????? // ???????. ????... ????. ?????. ????. ?????????, 1974. – 20?. [5] ???????.?., ???????? ?. ??????? ??????????????? ?????????? ? ??????? NP_1 ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???? // ??????? ? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???.??? ??. ??????, ???????: 1983. – ?. 56-61. [6] ??????? ?.?. ????????? ? ????????? from ? ??????????? ?????????? ????? // ???????.????…..????.?????.????. – ?????????, 1979. – 17 ?. [7] ??????????? ?.?. ?????????? ??????????????? ?????????-???????? ?? ??????? ???????????? (?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????). ????. ???.???.??????. ???.???. (PhD). – ???????, 2018. – 153 ?. [8] E.H. – Ernest Hemingway. Selected stories by Ernest Hemingway. – M.: Progress Publisher, 1971. - 378 p. [9] M.E. – Jack London “Martin Eden”. –M.: Foreign Language publishing house, 1960. – 442 p. [10] N.H. – Nick Hornby. “About a boy”. – United Kingdom. Gonllancz, 1998.-278 p. [11] ?.?.?. - Hoshimov O’tkir. „Nur borki, soya bor” /roman/ “Abadiy barhayot asarlar” turkumi. – T.: “Ilm-ziyo-zakovat”, 2019. – 256 b. [12] ?.?. – Pirimqul Qodirov. Yulduzli tunlar. “Abadiy barhayot asarlar” turkumi – T. : “Navro’z”, 2019. – 576 b. [13] ?.– ??????. ?????? ???????????. – ???????: ????? ????? ???????? ???????-?????? ???, 2018. – 460 ?.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Egamnazarov Kobil. 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.