O‘ZBEK VA TURK TILLARIDAGI RAVISHDOSH YASALISHINING MORFOLOGIK XUSUSIYATLARI
This article examines the morphological features of adverbial constructions in Uzbek and Turkish languages, both members of the Turkic language family. The study analyzes the structural patterns, derivational processes, and morphological markers that characterize adverbial constructions in these closely related languages. Through comparative analysis, the research identifies common Turkic heritage features as well as language-specific developments. The article explores various types of adverbial constructions including manner, time, place, and degree adverbials, examining their formation through affixation, reduplication, and compound structures. The findings reveal significant morphological parallels between the two languages while highlighting unique evolutionary paths in adverbial construction formation.
1. The genetic relationship between Uzbek and Turkish is well-established within the Turkic language family, though they belong to different branches (Karluk and Oghuz respectively) (Johanson & Csató, 1998).
2. Agglutination in Turkic languages is characterized by a one-to-one correspondence between morphemes and meanings, though some fusion occurs historically (Erdal, 2004).
3. Phonological changes between the languages reflect different historical trajectories, including vowel shifts and consonant changes. Turkish has undergone more extensive phonological restructuring under influence from Persian and Arabic (Bodrogligeti, 2003).
4. The vowel harmony system in Turkish distinguishes four features (front/back, rounded/unrounded) while Uzbek has reduced some distinctions in the literary language, though dialects vary considerably. See Bodrogligeti (2003).
5. Converbs represent one of the most productive areas of Turkic morphology and syntax. The variety of converbal forms allows expression of complex temporal, causal, and manner relationships. See Johanson and Csató (1998).
6. Reduplication as a morphological process has ancient Turkic origins and remains productive in modern languages. It typically conveys intensification, distribution, or iteration. See Kornfilt (1997).
7. The multifunctionality of case markers in Turkic languages demonstrates the fluidity between nominal and adverbial categories. Many case forms have grammaticalized into adverbial expressions. See Göksel and Kerslake (2005).
8. Arabic and Persian influence on both languages occurred at different historical periods and with varying intensity, affecting lexical borrowing and some morphosyntactic patterns. Turkish underwent more systematic adaptation of borrowed elements (Erdal, 2004).
9. The relatively free word order in both languages is constrained by pragmatic and information-structural considerations rather than strict syntactic requirements, though SOV represents the unmarked order (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005).
10. Lexicalization is an ongoing process in both languages, with some derivational patterns becoming less transparent as forms undergo semantic specialization and phonological reduction (Johanson & Csató, 1998).
Copyright (c) 2025 «ACTA NUUz»
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
1.png)
