The ministry of Higher and Secondary Special Education of the republic of Uzbekistan

«The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages»

Gulistan 2007


Introduction

A silence would be a lonely world. To listen, to answer, to share our thought and ideas through speech and hearing this is one of the most exciting ports of being human.

It is no doubt true that students grow toward maturity and independence of thought as they progress through the grades; but this growth is not as a rule a sharp and sudden one, nor does the psychology of the students undergo any great change during the various levels of the fundamental principles that underlie the work of the University remain the same from year to year. The need in every level is to bring about academic growth by providing near and broader experiences.

While working at school found out how difficult for the students of the secondary school, definite the national groups, to learn English, because there are no prepositions in Uzbek, but in English we have. If we talk about gender we have, of course some similarities. And when, I tried them to explain some examples in comparison they learned those words better than I thought.

Thus, the goal of the research is to investigate grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek, to investigate phonetics, in comparison English with Uzbek.

The enabling objectives are as follows:

To review literature of comparative languages (English and Uzbek) in order to make theoretically we-motivated discussions on the choice of comparison.

To analyze the parts of speech of the English language and the Uzbek language.

The novelty is that this work contains the comparative analyses of the English grammar, phonetics and construction of the sentence. The student made her own investigation finding many examples of comparison not only in English, and in Uzbek.

Materials and literature which she used were «The comparative typology of English and Turkic languages», the lectures on «Comparative typology» and «Theory of phonetics» by A. Abduazizov.

The qualification work consists of several parts where she opened and analyzed the theme.



1. Main part

 

1.1 Comparative typology of English and Uzbek

The word typology consists of two Greek morphemes: a) typos means type and b) logos means science or word. Typology is a branch of science which is typical to all sciences without any exception. In this respect their typological method is not limited with the sphere of one science. It has a universal rise. So typology may be divided into:

1.  Non-linguistic and

2.  Linguistic typology

Non-linguistic typology is the subject matter of the sciences except linguistics.

Linguistic typology is a new branch of general linguistic which studies the systems of languages comparatively, also finds common laws of languages and establishes differences and similarities between them.

Typological classification of languages.

In linguistics we may come across many terms as to the terminological nature of linguistic typology.

The are: 1. Comparative methods, 2. Comparative – historical method, 3. Comparative (or contrastive) linguistics, 4. Comparative typology, 5. Comparative grammar, 6. Connotation grammar, 7. Descriptive – comparative linguistics and on the terms used in Russian and Uzbek are not exact either. They are: сравнительная грамматика, сопоставительная грамматика, сравнительно-историческое языкознание, контрастивная лингвистика, сравнительная типология in Russian and қиёсий типология, қиёсий тарихий тилшунослик, қиёсий грамматика, қиёсий тилшунослик and so on in Uzbek.

Classification of linguistic typology.

According to the notion of comparison of linguistics phenomenon and the aim directed on we may classify linguistic typology into the following parts a) genetic of genealogical typology, b) structural typology, c) areal typology and d) comparative typology.

Genealogical typology is a branch of linguistic typology which studies the similarities and the relationship between the related languages. It is applicated to the systems of genetically related languages. Genealogical typology developed from the comparative – historical linguistics dominated during the 19th century in Europe. It’s origin was stimulated by the discovery of Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. The discovery of Sanskrit disclosed the possibility of a comparative study of languages. The concept of relative languages was confirmed by the existence in India of a sister of the familiar languages of Europe e.g. Sanskrit «mata» means «mother», in the accuse case «matarum»

Dvau-two

Trayah – three

As ti-he is etc.

Before the discovery of Sanskrit European linguistics possessed very vague similarities for the current grammars built on the Greek model. They didn’t set clearly the features of each languages. It is worth to mention that at the same time Sanskrit discovery gave rise to confuse notions of linguistic relation which lived for a brief time that European languages were derived from Sanskrit. But this opinion gave way to a correct explanation, namely Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and other were later forms of one prehistorically language.

Comparatives gave two kinds of classification of languages – genealogical and morphological.

Genealogical classification deals with the family relationship of languages which descend from one common ancestor. It distributes languages into different families.

Morphological classification deals with the classification of languages according to their structural features instead of a genealogical origin.

According to the morphological classification the languages are divided into:

Isolating (Chinese; Vietnamese; Japan; etc.)

Analytic (Russian; English; German; etc.)

Agglutinative (Turkish languages) and other.

Genetic Typology compares the systems of languages in two ways: diachronically and synchronically. But in the second case genetic relationship is not taken into consideration.

Structural linguistic typology can be understood as a systematization of linguistic phenomenon from different languages according to their specific structural features.

Structural typology research makes it possible to establish some traits are universal, unique, and special.

Language Universals.

The notion of language universals is closely connected with the process of unification of linguistic facts with a process of establishing common features between the systems of different languages.

With the process of generalization of linguistic phenomenon the investigations or language universals began at the end of 1950s. The main event in this field is the international conference held in April, 1961 in New-York.

At this conference a report called «Memorandum» concerning the language universals was presented by the American linguists J. Greenburg, Ch. Ostgood and J. Genkings. In the former Soviet Union B.A. Uspensky published his monographic research «Структурная типология языка» (1965).

In 1966 there appeared J. Greenberg’s book «Language universals with special references to feature hierarchies.»

These works were followed by a number of other research works published as articles and special volumes.

According to the «Memorandum» languages universals are by their nature summary statements about characteristics or tendencies shared by all human speakers. As such they constitute the most general laws of science of linguistics.

Language universals study the universal features in the systems of different languages of the world. They find similarities which are typical of the absolute or overwhelming majority of languages.

Types of universals are as follows: 1. Definitional universals, 2. Empirical universals.

Definitional universals are connected with the fact which the speaker possesses and uses his extrapolation. It means that linguistic phenomenon exists in the system of these languages which the scholar does not know.

E.g. Indo-European languages have the opposition of the vowels and consonants. This phenomenon may be considered to be systems of other languages of the world.

Empirical universals are connected with the mental or imaginary experience that is a definite linguistic feature may exist in all languages, secondly he or she does not know if this or that feature exist in all languages. E.g. composition may exist in all languages in spite of their morphological structure.

Unrestricted universals. According to this type of universals linguistic supposition of hypotheses is not restricted. E.g. all languages have vowels or for all languages the number of phonemes is not fewer that 10 or more that 70 or every language has at least 2 vowels.

Universal implication. These universals involve the relationship between two characteristics. If a language has a certain characteristics, it has also some particular characteristics but not vise-versa i.e. the presence of the second doesn’t empty the presence of the firs.

E.g. If a language has a category of dual number it has also a category of plural but not vise-versa. Such implications are numerous particularly in the phonological aspect of languages.

Comparative typology is a branch of general linguistic typology. It deals with a comparison of languages.

Comparative typology compares the systems of two or more concrete languages and creates common typological laws. The comparison of the system of two languages are compared first of all.

E.g. the category of mood in English is considered to be a small system. Having completed the comparison of languages investigators takes the third language to compare and so on. Comparative typology is sometimes characterized by some scholars as characterology which deals with the comparison of the systems only.

 


Информация о работе «The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages»
Раздел: Иностранный язык
Количество знаков с пробелами: 80636
Количество таблиц: 3
Количество изображений: 0

Похожие работы

Скачать
99613
1
0

... Smirnitsky 2). He added to Skeat's classification one more criterion: grammatical meaning. He subdivided the group of perfect homonyms in Skeat's classification into two types of homonyms: perfect which are identical in their spelling, pronunciation and their grammar form, such as «spring» in the meanings: the season of the year, a leap, a source, and homo-forms which coincide in their spelling ...

Скачать
93279
0
0

... . In the above example the verb undergo can be replaced by its synonyms without any change of the sentence meaning. This may be easily proved if a similar context is found for some other synonym in the same group. For instance: These Latin words suffered many transformations in becoming French. The denotational meaning is obviously the same. Synonyms, then, are interchangeable under certain ...

Скачать
74600
0
0

... of this language and changes in its synonymic groups. It has been mentioned that when borrowed words were identical in meaning with those already in English the adopted word very often displaced the native word. In most cases, however, the borrowed words and synonymous native words (or words borrowed earlier) remained in the language, becoming more or less differentiated in meaning and use. As a ...

Скачать
78822
3
0

... signaled by the pattern of the order and arrangement of the stems. A mere change in the order of stems with the same lexical meanings brings about a radical change in the lexical meaning of the compound word. For illustration let us compare lifeboat— 'a boat of special construction for saving lives front wrecks or along the coast' with boat-fife—'life on board the ship', a fruit-market — 'market ...

0 комментариев


Наверх