FORMAL AND FUNCTIONAL MEANS OF FORMING ANTONYMS IN THE DIALOGIC DISCOURSE OF FRENCH AND UZBEK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/gzz6b640Kalit so‘zlar:
antonim, dialogik diskurs, shakliy vosita, gap qolipi, prefiks, affiks, qiyosiy tahlil, fransuz tili, o‘zbek tili.Abstrak
Maqolada fransuz va o‘zbek tillaridagi suhbat matnlarida qarama-qarshi ma’noli so‘zlarni hosil qiluvchi shakliy vositalar qiyoslanadi. Antonimlar alohida so‘z sifatida emas, balki ular qo‘llangan gap qolipi va bajargan vazifasi bilan birgalikda ko‘rib chiqiladi. Ishda, bir tomondan, fransuz tilidagi in- prefiksining qo‘shilish imkoniyatlari bilan o‘zbek tilidagi -siz, no-, be- affikslarining qo‘llanish doirasi solishtiriladi; ikkinchi tomondan, dialogda antonimlarni bog‘lab keluvchi yetti xil gap qolipi tavsiflanadi. Tahlil natijasida har ikki tilda ham eng ko‘p ishlatiladigan antonimlar qo‘shimcha yordamida emas, turli o‘zaklardan hosil bo‘lishi aniqlanadi; qo‘shimcha bilan antonim yasash imkoniyati esa fransuz tilida so‘zning ma’nosiga, o‘zbek tilida uning turkumi va kelib chiqishiga bog‘liq ekanligi ko‘rsatiladi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Anscombre J.-C. L’insoutenable légèreté morphologique du préfixe négatif in- dans la formation d’adjectifs // Linx. – Paris: Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 1994. – Hors-série No. 5. – P. 299–321.
2. Apothéloz D. La construction du lexique français. – Paris: Ophrys, 2002. – 164 p.
3. Gaatone D. Les préfixes négatifs avec les adjectifs et les noms verbaux // Cahiers de lexicologie. – 1987. – No. 50. – P. 79–90.
4. Ismailov J. J. Dialogik diskurs haqida. Badiiy dialogik diskursda milliy mental va pragmatik omillarning roli // Modern Science and Research. – 2024. – Vol. 3. – Issue 5. – B. 557–564.
5. Jones S. Antonymy: A Corpus-based Perspective. – London: Routledge, 2002. – 193 p.
6. Jones S. The discourse functions of antonymy in spoken English // Text and Talk. – 2006. – Vol. 26. – P. 191–216.
7. Jones S., Murphy M. L., Paradis C., Willners C. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. – 174 p.
8. Karimova F. S. O‘zbek tilidagi dialogik nutqning lingvopragmatik xususiyatlari: filol. fan. bo‘yicha fals. d-ri (PhD) diss. avtoref. – Toshkent, 2021. – 46 b.
9. Lutfullayeva D. Tasdiq gaplarda inkor va shakliy-mazmuniy nomuvofiqlik: filol. fan. nomz. diss. avtoref. – Toshkent, 1997. – 24 b.
10. Muehleisen V., Isono M. Antonymous adjectives in Japanese discourse // Journal of Pragmatics. – 2009. – Vol. 41. – No. 11. – P. 2185–2203.
11. Murphy M. L., Paradis C., Willners C., Jones S. Discourse functions of antonymy: A cross-linguistic investigation of Swedish and English // Journal of Pragmatics. – 2009. – Vol. 41. – No. 11. – P. 2159–2184.
12. Steffens M. Antonymic Discourse Functions and Manipulation: A Corpus Analysis of Present-Day French // Corpus Pragmatics. – 2018. – Vol. 2. – P. 313–332.
13. Murphy M. L. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy and Other Paradigms. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. – 292 p.
14. Pardayev A. B. O‘zbek tili yordamchi so‘z turkumlarining lisoniy tizimdagi o‘rni va lingvopragmatikasi: filol. fan. d-ri diss. avtoref. – Toshkent, 2017. – 26 b.
15. Raupova L. R. Dialogik diskursdagi polipredikativ birliklarning sotsiopragmatik tadqiqi: filol. fan. d-ri diss. – Toshkent, 2017. – 261 b.
16. Safarov Sh. Pragmalingvistika: monografiya. – Toshkent: O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi, 2008. – 300 b.
