The role of lexical-morphological means in the formation of the nominative structure of the sentence in English and Azerbaijani

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Baku State University

The role of lexical-morphological means in the formation of the nominative structure of the sentence in English and Azerbaijani

Aliyeva U.Kh.

Анотація

Алієва У.Х. Роль лексико-морфологічних засобів у формуванні номінативної структури речення в англійській та азербайджанській мовах

У статті розглядаються лексико-морфологічні засоби для формування нормативної структури речення в англійській та азербайджанській мовах. В англійській мові, як і в азербайджанській, одним із основних засобів формування номінативної структури речення є дієслівні лексеми. Частини мови є основним будівельним матеріалом речення та основними засобами вираження членів речення. Завдяки своїй ролі у побудові речення дієслова займають особливе становище серед частин мови. Порівняння мов із різними системами показує, що дієслова - це групи слів з різними характеристиками у різних мовах. Дієслова у різних мовах навіть мають дуже різні зовнішні форми для вираження одного й того самого змісту. Ці форми вказують на те, що необхідно підходити до характеристик граматичних категорій загалом. Однією з головних особливостей, що відрізняють дієслова від іменників, є їх відмінювання, вживання у функції присудка і вираз предикативності. Тим не менш, до відмінювання самого дієслова також необхідно підходити систематично, враховуючи єдині категоріальні характеристики, властиві дієсловам. Як і в інших тюркських мовах, в азербайджанській іменники змінюються залежно від особи, стають присудками пропозиції та виражають предикативність. Однак це не дає підстав відносити їх до дієслова.

Очевидно, перетворення стало особливим, продуктивним способом у сучасній англійській з певних причин. На думку, особливу роль цьому процесі зіграли як екстралінгвістичні, і внутрішньо-лінгвістичні чинники, що пов'язані з розвитком аналітизму в англійській. Однак феномен конверсії в англійській мові не здатний внести такі суттєві якісні зміни до номінативної структури сучасної англійської мови. В англійській мові, як і в азербайджанській, дієслова є окремою групою слів, що відрізняється лексико-семантичними, морфологічними та синтаксичними особливостями, і ця група слів займає унікальне місце у формуванні номінативної структури речення.

Ключові слова: лексико-морфологічні засоби, азербайджанська мова, англійська мова, частини мови, структура речення, лексична семантика.

The problem statement

In English, as in Azerbaijani, the verb is opposed to nouns as a part of speech. This opposition is based on both their lexical-semantic and morphological features, as well as their syntactic functions. However, here, in our opinion, it is necessary to dwell on one issue especially. In Azerbaijani, as well as in Turkic languages, there is no direct transformation (conversion) of verbs into nouns and vice versa. In these languages, the creation of a noun or a verb is performed, as a rule, by means of special historically formed derivational suffixes.

The purpose of the article is to note the role of lexico-morphological means in the formation of the nominative sentence structure in the English and Azerbaijani languages.

The main material

“From a contensive typology perspective, the principles of lexeme-building of the language are of great importance” [5, s. 354]. Verbal lexemes play a special role in the formation of the nominative structure of the sentence. Thus, lexical semantics, morphological characteristics and syntactic features of verbs are especially important in the formation of the sentence structure, while language types that differ for the contensive typology primarily are opposed to each other in terms of verb lexemes. In some sources, the perception of the verb as the main constructing element of the sentence is not accidental, either [9, p. 15]. Indeed, verbs are fundamentally distinguished from other parts of speech by their lexical-semantic, morphological, syntactic, stylistic, phonetic and other features, as well as by the richness, variety, individuality of these features and are very significant in this regard. Verbs are mostly of native origin. Verbs are mostly of indigenous (native) origin. Even all monosyllabic verbs are comprised of the words of native origin associated with the ancient layer of the language. All verb-forming suffixes - both noun-verb and verb-verb - are of indigenous origin. Among derivational verbs, borrowed derivational suffixes are not found. Verbs are distinguished from other parts of speech by their semantic features. Thus, not a single group of words, not even nouns, can be compared with verbs in terms of semantic richness and polysemy. Morphologically, verbs are distinguished by the richness of their grammatical categories, by the fact that these categories are mainly unique to them, in other words, by having special grammatical categories.

Verbs also differ from almost all groups of words in the construction of the sentence, in the formation of the predicative of the sentence and they occupy a special place in the expression of the completeness of ideas, predictivity and modality in the sentence. The distinctive features of verbs do not end there [9, s. 15-21]. However, all of these also suggest that verbs are a unique category of words, holding a special position in the lexical-semantic and grammatical structure of the language. Our language scholars (linguists) pay a special attention to such an aspect in contemporary Azerbaijani: “in the initial period of the formation of the National Azerbaijani language, the verb differed from other parts of speech in its morphological variety” [4, p. 86].

In some sources, this is regarded as a confrontation of the categories of nouns, verbs, adverbs and states. And occasionally, in separate languages, the noun-verb confrontation (noun vs verb) is distinguished, based on the complete differentiation of adverbs and their similar common features with nouns. In the morphological system of the language, verbs are opposed to nouns. This is generally true for Turkic languages as well as for the Azerbaijani language. Researchers regard the noun-verb opposition as a confrontation of things inherent in nouns, actions, processes inherent in verbs, classification inherent in nouns, conjugation inherent in verbs, subject-object inherent in nouns, predicativity inherent in verbs.

However, in modern Turkic languages, a certain group of words, which are used as nouns and verbs is also observed. E.g.: in Uyghur, oq “gagirmaq”, “sos”, “soz” (“to call”, “sound” “word”), in general Turkish, ot, “otmok, kegmok” (pass, “to overtake, to pass”), ot “kegid”, “yol” (pass, “passage”, “road”), in Turkish, sus “susmaq”, sus “sakitlik” (be silent “to keep silence”, be silent “calmness”), etc. [12, p. 178-190]. The same cases are observed in some lexical units of the Azerbaijani language. E.g.: ac - ac(maq) (hungry - (to get) hungry, kog - kog(mok) (migration - (to) migrate), dad - dad(maq) (taste - (to) taste), etc. In modern Turkic languages, words of this type, which have a semantic connection of identity, are a minority. However, the approach to the issue from a historical point of view implies that the noun-verb combinability is of a systemic nature in a certain period.

Therefore, in linguistics, they sometimes distinguish the stage of noun-verb syncretism for Turkic languages, trying to identify syncretic units having a latent character in modern Turkic languages. There are different opinions about this combinability between nouns and verbs in Turkic languages. In general, noun-verb combinability can be considered as a phenomenon related to the more ancient analytical structure of Turkic languages. Some scholars/researchers are of the opinion that the proto-Turkic (praturk) language used to have a monosyllabic character. This implies that the root of the Turkic languages is derived from the proto-Turkic language, which has a structure similar to amorphous languages [3, s. 19]. However, a separate study of this issue shows that an approach to the issue is ambiguous. In this term, the issue in linguistics can be summarized as follows:

1. Weak differentiation of nouns and verbs, historically existince of noun-verb syncretism;

2. Formation of the noun-verb homonymy from verb roots by means of inflectional suffixes;

3. The relationship of the noun-verb combinability with the characteristics of primitive thinking itself.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that when delving into the more ancient period of Turkic languages, linguists face both formal and semantic correspondence of nouns and verbs as a language factor. The same phenomenon can be observed in modern English. The use of semantically related words as nouns and verbs is widespread in modern English. E.g.: love “sevgi” - to love “sevmok”, sleep “yuxu” - to sleep “yatmaq”, a lie “yalan” - to lie “yalan dani§maq”, a step “addim” - to step “adlamaq”, a play “oyun” - to play “oynamaq” and so on. One of the productive ways of word formation in modern English is conversion. lexical semantic syntactic verb azerbaijani english sentence

Conversion literally means transformation. In English, conversion is not perceived as using the same word in the function of different parts of speech, the converted words (lexemes) are regarded as different, separate words in relation to each other. In this case, it is taken into account that the change of paradigm is the change of the grammatical system of a word, but the converted word also changes its lexical function. Interestingly, in Azerbaijani linguistics, conversion has also been studied as a separate means of word-building and different levels of conversion have been distinguished. In our opinion, the drawback of approaching the issue here is that the conversion, which is regarded as a means of word formation, is not differentiated from the use of parts of speech in different functions [2, p. 160-169; 1, p. 66-70].

One of the issues associated with the phenomenon of conversion in English is the reason of creation of this method of word formation in this language. In modern English, converted words cannot be considered homonyms in terms of diachronism. In modern English, love “sevgi” and love “sevmok”, sleep “yuxu” and sleep “yatmaq” are homonymous words. These words differ both in their lexical-semantic and categorical meaning and grammatical features, and in their syntactic fuctions, but historically they had different forms. For example: in Old English, lufian “to love” (“sevmok”), lufu “love” (“sevgi”), slaepan “to sleep” (“yatmaq”), slaep “sleep” (“yuxu”). Word formation in Old English was performed mainly by morphological and syntactic methods. After the Norman invasion, most of the derivational suffixes lost their productivity and disappeared from the language. And in the Middle English period, most of the grammatical suffixes were lost, which resulted in homonymization of words belonging to different parts of speech. Researchers point out that such words, which differed in Old English and were perceived as homonyms in modern English, constitute the majority. E.g.: answer (“cavab”, “cavab vermok”), drink (“igki”, “igmok”), fear (“qorxu”, “qorxmaq”), rest (“istirahot”, “istirahot etmok”), step (“addim”, “addimlamaq”), work (“i§”, “i§lomok”), etc. Such words are also manifested among adjectives and verbs. E.g; dry (“quru”, “qurumaq”), free (“azad”, “azad olmaq”) and so on.

A comparative study of the lexical-semantic features of verbs in both English and Azerbaijani demonstrates that there is no such difference between these languages. From the lexical-semantic point of view, the difference between these languages mainly manifests itself in the approach to the problem, morphological structures and classification principles [7, p. 7-12].

As in Azerbaijani, verbs in English are divided into two main groups:

1) Conjugated verbs;

2) Non-con- jugated verbs.

Conjugated verbs are called personal verbs (finite verbs), and non-conjugated verbs are called impersonal verbs (non-finite or infiitive verbs). In English, the personal form of the verb (finite verb form) has the following categories:

1) Person-number category;

2) Mood cateqory;

3) Tense cateqory;

4) Voice cateqory;

5) Aspect cateqory.

Unlike the Azerbaijani language, the category of person in English has not been developed. In this language, the -s or -es endings are used only in the third person singular of the Present Indefinite Tense form. The category of person and number is expressed in the English verb mainly together with personal pronouns. E.g; I speak. We speak. They speak. In English, only the form of the verb “to be” (am) for the first person singular and the suffix -s in the Present Indefinite Tense Form and the auxiliary verb does designate independently the person and number. Unlike Azerbaijani, the subject of the sentence in English always finds its expression. In the Azerbaijani language, the predicate assumes the person and number of the subject. Therefore, the subject may not be used. For example; yaziram (I write), yazir- san (you write), etc.

Non-conjugated verbs in English include the infinitive, the participle and the gerund. As a nominative language, it is an infinitive form of a verb that combines English and Azerbaijani languages. Thus, the infinitive form of the verb appears only in languages with a nominative structure. In Turkic languages, a variety of morphological indicators of action nouns has historically developed, subsequently one group of these morphological indicators was fixed as suffixes forming a noun from a verb, and the other group was differentiated as suffixes of personal and impersonal forms of the verb.

The infinitive form of the verb was also formed on the basis of action nouns. Infinitive suffixes in various Turkic languages are different. And this is one of the factors indicating that the infinitive was formed later. In the Azerbaijani language, the indicator of the infinitive form of the verb is the suffix “-maq, - mok.” In Azerbaijani, the suffix “-ma,- mo” is also used in a similar meaning and function with this suffix. Therefore, in some grammars, verbs with this suffix were called verbal nouns or light infinitives. Also, in English, infinitive is one of the well-studied categories, the linguistic features of which are determined [6, p. 209]. Also in modern English, the infinitive has a separate formal feature [13]. In the English language, the particle “to” added to the beginning of verbs forms infinitive and expresses the meaning corresponding to the suffix “-maq, -mok” in Azerbaijani. E.g; to be busy “mosgui olmaq”, to be free “azad olmaq”, to love “sevmok”, to see “gormok”, to play “oynamaq”, etc.

The English language also uses the preposition “to”, which is homonymous with the particle “to”. If the word after “to” means action, it is the infinitive, if the word after “to” means an object, it is used in the function of a preposition [12, p. 173]. He begins to work at eight o'clock every day (infinitive); He goes to work at eight o'clock every day (noun). Sometimes the infinitive is compared with the nominative case of nouns: “The infinitive is regarded as the basic form for all verb paradigms, as it denotes its main function, that is, expresses the name of action. Due to this feature, the infinitive can be compared to the nominative case of a noun in developed languages” [12, p. 105]. In English, the infinitive was historically referred as a verbal noun and “to” as a preposition. The verb “to” in front of the noun expressed the objective (accusative) case, later the verbal noun acquired the properties of the verb and “to” became formal feature of the infinitive [10, s. 159]. In modern English, the infinitive can sometimes be used without adding the particle “to”. In Old English, there were two cases of infinitive: nominative and accusative. E.g.: nominative case - libban, accusative case - libenne (“to live”), nominative case - sprecan, accusative case - spre- cenne (“to speak”). Further development of the language resulted in the reduction of suffixes such as -an, -enne, the loss of the nominative case features of the preposition “to” and the fixation of the particle “to” as a feature of the infinitive. “The infinitive, which has all the morphological and syntactic characteristics of the noun in Old English, retains some of the functions of the noun” [8, p. 25].

In English, the infinitive is a verb form. The infinitive form of the verb denotes action according to its general grammatical meaning, it is affirmative and negative, transitive and intransitive, expresses certain voice, mood and tense forms. In English, transitive verbs have four, and in passive voice two infinitives. The indefinite infinitive in active voice is called the Indefinite Infinitive Active and is considered a simple type of infinitive. And the compound forms of the infinitive are formed by the verb “to be” or “to have” and by the participle. Indefinite infinitive denotes an action which occurs simultaneously with the personal form of the verb. In a sentence, the infinitive used with the verbs to expert, to hope, to intend, to want denotes an action that refers to the future. E.g., I want you to give me some information (London). Unlike the indefinite form of the infinitive, the continuance form expresses the continuity of work or action. The meaning may remain unchanged when some verbs denoting hope and intention are used in an indefinite form. E.g.; I had meant to go there.

The infinitive is a form of a verb that also has the properties of a noun. This is reflected in both English and Azerbaijani. However, in these languages there are also certain distinctive features of the infinitive [8, p. 24-52]. In English, the infinitive has the mood, tense forms. In English, only the infinitive of transitive verbs have voice category, and can be used in both active and passive voices.For instance:

1. The desire to write was stirring in, Martin once more (London).

2. I don't want to be released (London).

In English, the infinitive can be used in the functions of subject, predicative, compound verb, main part of predicate, component of complex object, attribute and adverb. In general, although the infinitive in Turkic and the infinitive in Indo-European languages have certain distinctive features, the fact that this category exists only in the nominative languages brings them together in terms of contensive typology. In English, the origin of the infinitive from nouns to verbs and in Azerbaijani from action nouns to verbs, can also be regarded as a pattern of parallel development of individual linguistic events in nominative languages. Verb conjugations, which are one of the impersonal forms of the verb in the Azerbaijani language, are absent in English. Also, one of the impersonal forms of the verb in English, the gerund, does not exist in Azerbaijani. Like the infinitive in English, the gerund has properties of both the verb and the noun. But unlike the infinitive, the gerund has a sense of continuity. It should also be noted that there is no such corresponding part of speech like the gerund in other Indo-European languages. In this sense, the gerund can be regarded as an impersonal form existing only in the English language.

The gerund does not have a specific morphological feature. The gerund is formed by adding the suffix -ing to the end of the infinitive without “to”. The gerund does not differ from the verb in its form and corresponds to the participle and infinitive for its verbal characteristics and to the infinitive for its noun properties [10, p. 174-187]. As an impersonal (non-finite) form of the verb, the gerund differs from both verbal nouns and participles. The suffix -ing of the gerund makes it similar in form to verbal nouns, but verbal nouns only differ in having noun characteristics [11].

Conclusions

Paradigm change in conversion is not only a means of word formation, but also acts as its only, sole means. Changing the paradigm of the word is considered as a method of word-building, conversion. One of the issues of interest with regard to conversion is the acceptance in English linguistics of the idea that such words are sometimes formed from nouns and sometimes from verbs. According to researchers, the converted words differ in their semantic structure. One of the words aquires a more complex semantic structure. And this gives a reason to talk about internal, semantic word formation. A word may be regarded as a unit formed either from a verb or from a noun, depending on whether the semantic relationship in the words formed by conversion corresponds to the relationship in the words formed by using suffixes. Such words are not subdivided by structure into simple and derived words (derivatives), but one of them can be considered the basis for another word in terms of word-formation. In modern English, verb creation by means of conversion is more productive.

Bibliography

1. Axundov, A. Azorbaycan dilindokonversiya. Baki, Azsrbaycan dili vssdsbiyyati tsdrisi, 1977. №4. S. 66-74.

2. Axundov, A. Umumi dilgilik. Baki: §orq-Qorb, 2006. 280 s.

3. Colilov, F Azorbaycan dilinin morfonologiyasi. Baki: Maarif, 1988. 288 s.

4. Domirgizado, O.M. “Kitabi-Dodo Qorqud” dastanlarinin dili. Baki: API, 1959. 160 s.

5. Oliyeva, U.X. Dillorin kontensiv tipologiyasi // B.Cobanzade 125. Azerbaycan dili: dunon vo bu gun, Beynolxalq elmi konfrans, Baki Dovlot Universiteti, Baki, 2018. S. 352-355

6. Huseynzado, M. Muasir Azorbaycan dili. Morfologiya. Baki: Maarif, 1983. III hisso. 320 s.

7. Xanbabayeva, Y. Azorbaycan vo ingilis dillorindo nitq vo esitmo feillori: / filologiya uzro folsofo doktoru dissertasiyasinin avtoreferati. Baki, 2015. 25 s.

8. Ismayilova, S.V. Azorbaycan vo ingilis dillorindo feilin tosriflonmoyon formalari: / filologiya uzro folsofo doktoru dissertasiyasi. Baki, 165 s.

9. Mirzoyev, H. Azorbaycan dilindo feil. Baki: Maarif, 1986. 320 s.

10. Musayev, O. ingilis dilinin qrammatikasi. Baki: Maarif, 1979. 360 s.

11. Yusifov, M. Linqvistik tipologiya (dillorarasi mustoroklik vo tofokkur tipologiyasi). Baki: Elm vo tohsil, 2017. 84 s.

12. Palmer, F.R. Grammatical Roles and relations. Cambridge, Cambringe University Press, 1994. 400 p.

13. Stern, G. Swift, swiftey and their synonyms. A contribution to semantic analysis and theory. Goteborg: Wetterge, 1921. 294 p.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru