CC BY
124
General linguistic principles of the secondary predication in English
consonant “p" is doubled as a result of affixation. Later the initial consonant “k" changed into “g", the vowel “o’ " assimilated to “u", and soft mark of the vowel “u" was lost in Uzbek [16].
This analysis of initial k and g//g and k, even if it was not so typical phonetic change, and can be observed in qorluq and qipchoq dialects of Uzbek language, the doubling of the
consonant “p" had influenced on extra-shading the meaning of the word.
According to the facts above, the analysis study of lexical layer of regional dialects shows the importance of studying general outlook of Khorezm regional professional lexical layer of the dialect.
References:
1. Аннаъим. - Тошкент: Абдулла Кодирий номидаги халк, мероси нашриёти. 2003. - Б. 375.
2. Алишер Навоий. Мкаммал асарлар туплами. Еттинчи том. - Тошкент: Фан, 1991. - Б. 146.
3. Алишер Навоий. Х^айрат ул-аброр. Илмий-танкидий матн. Тузувчи Порсо Шамсий. - Тошкент: Фан, 1970. - Б. 86.
4. Абдуллаев Ф. Хоразм шевалари. - Тошкент: Фан, 1961. - Б. 110.
5. Узбек тилининг изодли лугати. Беш жилдли. Учинчи жилд. - Тошкент: Узбекистан Миллий энциклопедияси. - Б. 441.
6. Носиров Ш. Шевалар лексикасининг содалар буйича группалари.//Узбек шевалари лексикаси. - Тошкент: Фан, 1991. - Б. 141-142.
7. Радматуллаев Ш. Узбек тилининг этимологик лугати. - Тошкент: Университет, 2000. - Б. 108.
8. Туйчибоев Б., Кашкирли К. Зоминнинг тил комуси. - Тошкент: Akademnashr, 2012. - Б. 238.
9. Радматуллаев Ш. Узбек тилининг этимологик лугати. - Тошкент: Университет, 2000. - Б. 250.
10. Севортян Э. В. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков. - М.: Наука, I. - C. 115.
11. Абдурадмонов F., Рустамов А. Кадимги туркий тил. - Тошкент: Укитувчи, 1981. - Б. 71.
12. Наджип Э. Тюркский язык делийского солтана XIV века.//Советская тюркология. - 1982. - № 2. - С. 86.
13. Севортян Э. В. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков. - М.: Наука, I. - C. 103.
14. Абдуллаев Ф. Хоразм шевалари. - Тошкент: Узбекистон Фанлар академияси нашриёти, 1961.
15. Мадмуд Кошгарий. Девону луготит турк. Таржимон ва нашрга тайёрловчи С. Муталлибов. II жилд. - Тошкент: УзФАН, 1961. - Б. 263.
16. Радматуллаев Ш. Узбек тилининг этимологик лугати. - Тошкент: Университет, 2000. - Б. 87.
Norbaev Uktam Saparbaevich, teacher of the English language and literature department, Foreign Languages Faculty, Urgench State University
Madraximova Nazokat, student, English language and literature department, Foreign Languages Faculty, Urgench State University
Jumatov Rashid,
teacher of the English language and literature department, Foreign Languages Faculty, Urgench State University E-mail: Guzal7212@gmail.com
General linguistic principles of the secondary predication in English
Abstract: One of the essential characteristics of a secondary predicate construction is the fact that a single clause contains two predicative constituents, which do not form a complex predicate in the way serial verbs or periphrastic predicates do. In every sentence there is bound to be predication, without which there would be no sentence. Keywords: predicative expression, periphrastic predicates, recitatives, Subject-oriented.
Secondary predication is stillreckoned pervasive in languages and under debate in current public linguistics. A secondary predicate is a (mostly adjectival) predicative expression that conveys information about the subject or the object but is not the main predicate of the clause. One of the essential characteristics of a secondary predicate construction is the fact that a single clause contains two predicative constituents, which do not form a complex predicate in the way serial verbs
or periphrastic predicates do. In every sentence there is bound to be predication, without which there would be no sentence. In a usual two-member sentence the predication is between the subject and the predicate. In most sentences this is the only predication they contain. However, there are also sentences which contain one more predication, which is not between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. This predication may conveniently be termed secondary predication. In this
117
Section 10. Philology
article secondary predication is analyzed according to types of secondary predication, its functional character, its syntactical phenomenon.
Firstly, secondary predication is usually classified into two categories of constructions depictive and recitatives — illustrated in further examples respectively. The common depictive semantically encrypt a physical, emotional or motivational state or condition in a construction with a verb of motion, manipulation/affect, change of state or incorporation. e.g.
Depictive predication:
July came into the room happily. “Subject-oriented”
July ate the vegetable raw. “Obj ect-oriented”
Consecutive secondary predication in English is productive, though the subject to anumber of restrictions well-known from literature.Consecutive predication with an adjectival form or consecutives that can be considered as a special form of secondary predicates, occur rarely.
Consecutive predication:
Henry hammered the metal flat.
Consecutive secondary predication must be distinguished from the other widely attested kind of secondary predication, specificallythe depictive, which we will not be concernedwith here (see Andrews 1982, Stowell 1983, Winkler 1994).
(3) a. Mark drove home drunk. Subject-orienteddepictive
b. Don’t eat the meat raw! Object-oriented depictive
Syntactical phenomenon which is best, considered under this heading of transition to the composite sentence is based on what is very appropriately termed “secondary predication”. In Modern English there are several ways of expressing secondary predication. One of them is what is frequently called the complex object, as seen in the sentences.
a. Ann saw him run.
b. We heard them sing.
Let us take the first of these sentences for closer examination. The primary predication in this sentence is between the subject “Ann” and the predicate saw. “Ann” is the doer of the action expressed by the predicate verb. But in this sentence there is one more predication, that between “him” and “run”: the verb “run” expresses the action performed by him. This predication is obviously a secondary one: “him” is not the subject of a sentence or a clause, and run is not its predicate. The same can be said about all the sentences given directly above. On the syntactic function of the group him run (or of its elements) opinions vary. The main modification is between those who think that him run is a syntactic unit, and
those who think that him is one part of the sentence, and run another. If the phrase is taken as a syntactic unit, it is very normal to call it a complex object: it stands in an object relation to the predicate verb “saw” and consists of two elements. If, on the other hand, the phrase “him run” is not considered to be a syntactic unit, its major element is the object, and its second element is conveniently termed the objective predicative. The choice between the two interpretations remains arbitrary and neither of them can be proved to be the only right one. In favor of the view that the phrase is a syntactical unit, a semantic reason can be put forward.
In some cases, that is, with other verbs, the separation of the two elements may not bring about a change in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, if we look at our example/“saw him run”, and if we stop after him: “I saw him”, this does not contradict the meaning of the original sentence: “I saw him run” implies that/“saw him”. Another case in which the two elements of the phrase cannot be separated is found when the verb expresses some idea like order or request and the second element of the phrase is a passive infinitive. With the sentence he ordered the man to be subpoenaed we cannot possibly stop after man. There is no doubt, therefore, that with some verbs (arid some nouns, for that matter) the two elements of the phrase following the predicate verb cannot be disconnected. It is, however, not certain that this is a resistant of the syntactic unity of the phrase. The objective predicative need not be an infinitive: it may be a participle (“I saw him running”, “We heard them singing”), an adjective (“I found him ill”, “They thought him dead”), a state verb (“I found him asleep”), sometimes an adverb, and a prepositional phrase. One of them seems to be the more usual, takes the sentence as an equivalent of the sentence “There I found him”: the adverb there is then an adverbial modifier fitting to the verb find. The other interpretation would make the sentence equivalent to the sentence “I found that he was there”. In this latter case the adverb there does not show where the action of finding took place, and it is not an adverbial modifier be in the right place to the predicate verb found. It is part of the secondary predication group him there and has then to be taken as an objective predicative: I found him there is syntactically the same as I found him ill, or I found him asleep.
Secondary predications can be used in restrictive attributive constructions, restrictive object constructions, and restrictive appositional constructions in order to define the main verb of the sentence.
References:
1. Baylin John. “The syntax of Slavic predicate case”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. - 2001. - 22, 1-23.
2. Bowers John. “Predication”, in: M. Baltin, C. Collins (eds.): The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. - Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
3. Winkler Susanne. Focus and secondary predication. - New York, 1997.
118
