INGLIZ TILI NOTARIAL MATNIDAGI GAPLARNING STRUKTUR TAHLILI
Kalit so‘zlar:
gap tuzilishi, notarial nutq, murakkab gap, mavzu-rema, bo'ysunuvchi gaplar, huquqiy janr tahlili, huquqiy maqsadlar uchun ingliz tili.Abstrak
Ushbu maqola ingliz notarial matnlaridagi gaplarning strukturaviy tahlilini taqdim etadi, ularning grammatik tuzilishi va huquqiy munozaradagi kommunikativ funktsiyalariga e'tibor qaratadi. Tadqiqotda ikkita qo'shimcha yondashuv qo'llaniladi: rasmiy-grammatik tasniflash (sodda, qo'shma, murakkab va qo'shma-murakkab gaplar) va tizimli-funksional grammatika (mavzu-rem tuzilishi va gap bo'lagi turlari) asosidagi funktsional tahlil. Notarial hujjatlar to'plamidan olingan empirik ma'lumotlar, jumladan, notarial guvohnomalar, ishonchnomalar, vasiyatnomalar va tasdiqlangan nusxalar murakkab va qo'shma-murakkab gaplar barcha janrlarda (barcha gaplarning 60-80%) ustunlik qilishini, mantiqiy aniqlik va huquqiy inklyuzivlikka bo'lgan ehtiyojni aks ettirishini ko'rsatadi. Bayon etuvchi gaplar deyarli yagona gap turi sifatida qo'llaniladi, so'roq va undov gaplar esa deyarli yo'q, bu esa notarial munozaraning shaxssiz va obyektiv xususiyatini ta'kidlaydi. Tobe gaplarning tahlili shuni ko'rsatadiki, nisbiy gaplar (cheklovchi) va to'ldiruvchi gaplar (ayniqsa, ijro etuvchi fe'llardan keyin "o'sha" - gap bo'lagi) eng ko'p uchraydi, ravishdosh gaplar esa affektiv va subyektiv ma'nolari tufayli ancha kam uchraydi. Cheklanmagan ("to"-infinitiv, "-ing" sifatdoshi, "-ed" sifatdoshi) konstruksiyalar axborot zichligini oshirishning asosiy vositalari sifatida aniqlangan. Mavzu-rema taqsimoti odatda zamon-joy iboralarini yoki institutsional sub'ektlarni (masalan, "Men, notarius...") mavzu holatiga qo'yadi va shu bilan notarial hujjatlarning daliliy va tasdiqlash funktsiyasini kuchaytiradi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. — London; New York: Longman, 1985.
2. Halliday M.A.K., Matthiessen C.M.I.M. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. — 4th ed. — London; New York: Routledge, 2014.
3. Tiersma P.M. Legal Language. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
4. Bhatia V.K. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. — London: Longman, 1993.
5. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. — London; New York: Longman, 1985.
6. Abu-Ssaydeh A.F., Jarad N. Complex Sentences in English Legislative Texts: Patterns and Translation Strategies // Comparative Legilinguistics. — 2016. — Vol. 27.
7. Adejare R.A. The Complex Sentence in Legal English: A Study of Law Reports // Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics. — 2014. — Vol. 4.
8. Krapivkina O.A. Semantics of the Verb Shall in Legal Discourse // Jezikoslovje. — 2017. — Vol. 18. — № 2.
9. Hiltunen R. The Type and Structure of Clausal Embedding in Legal English // Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. — 1984. — Vol. 4. — № 1–3.
10. Almanna A. Syntactic Features // Legal Translation between English and Arabic. — Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023.
11. Biber D. Variation across Speech and Writing. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
12. Lu X. Automatic Analysis of Syntactic Complexity in Second Language Writing // International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. — 2010. — Vol. 15. — № 4.
13. Zozula D. Features of the Language of Law: A Comparative Study of Polish, English and Indonesian Legal Texts // International Journal of Legal Discourse. — 2019. — Vol. 4. — № 1.
