CC BY
8
https://doi.org/10.29013/EJLL-23-1-30-38
Abduvaliyev Maxamatjon Arabovich Candidate of Philogical sciences, Professor, Andijan State Institute of Foreign languages, Uzbekistan.
SYNTACTIC REPRESENTANTS OF THE CONCEPT OF CONCESSION IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
Annotation. The present article is devoted to the contrastive study of the so called simple and composite syntactic constructions, expressing concessive relations existing in the inner and outer world. Such syntactic representatives can be groupped into two groups: those expressing concession explicitly and those expressing concession implicitly. Each of the representants differs from others in regard with their functions, semantics, structures and stylistic use. Contrastive study of such problems give a chance to disclose isomorphic, allomorphic and specific features of the syntactic repesentants of word languages.
Key words: syntactic constructions simple and composite sentence, syntactic representants, concession, cocessive, explicit, implicit, functions, semantics, structures, stylistic use, contrastive study.
Introduction Even so, it should be noted that the scholars are
Concession as a universal product of mental ac- not unanimous in the description and classification tivities of human being finds its linguistic objectifica- of predicative syntactic units expressing concession
tion in all world languages. Actually, the concept of concession is the sum of knowledge on the existing relations among the objects of the inner and outer world. Concession, admittance, agreement, permission and others make up the most important characteristic features of the concept. They may be verbalized with the help of language and speech units and form the nominative field of concession.
The field is represented by the units belonging to different lexical morphological and syntactic levels. Syntactic constructions with simple and composite structure that express the concept of concession were the object of a great number of research works. But a number of issues related to semantic and structural, pragmatic and cultural problems are still remaining disputable in modern linguistics. Study of the problem in the materials of non-related languages is sure to bring essential theoretical conclusions to linguistic conceptology.
in world linguistics, in particular, non-predicative clauses with concessive the component. For example: in world linguistics, logical-grammatical (formal) and structural semantic directions can be observed regarding the classification of the complex sentences, for example, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries in English linguistics, approaching from the point of view of representatives of the logical trend, its dichotomous simple and compound classification was developed. This method of subor-dinatied the language to the laws of logic, the speech was divided into simple and complex types. This can be described in the following models: N comcase +V=SJ (judgement); N comcase + N comcase or more +V+ V or more=CJ.
In the 70s of the last century, a structural-functional classification of complex sentences appeared in traditional English grammar. (R. Quirk and others, 1982: 269-302). R. Quirk and others
divide (Dependent clauses- DC) into three types (finite, non-finite, verbless clauses) according to their structure, and functional of the clauses into subject, object, compliment or adverb clauses (Quirk and others 1982: 269-271; 274-280).
In Russian linguistics, scientists who classified complex sentences from the point ofview of logical-grammatical trend, scientists N.I. Grech, I.I. Davi-dov, F.I. Buslaev studied the language, in particular, parts of sentences as problems of logic. They tried to explain the laws of language based on the laws of logic. The description of complex sentences from the point of view of similarity to simple sentence parts can be found in the work of «General Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language (1852)» by I.I. Davidov and «Historical Grammar of the Russian Language (1858)» by F.I. Buslaev.
Against the idea that every part of the sentence is represented by a dependent clause, another, more precisely, formal-grammatical approach appeared at the beginning of the past century. A.A. Poteb-nya, a bright representative of it, in his work «Correspondences on the grammar of the Russian language (1874)» emphasizes that in the study of the complex sentence, the main attention should be paid to the superordinate and dependent clause connectives (conjunctions and connectives). F.F. Fortuna-tov, A.A. Shakhmatov, V.A. Bogoroditsky and others focused on creating a classification of complex sentences by researching the structural-semantic relations between the superordinate and dependent clause parts of complex sentences.
Method
Alongside with semantic analysis, contrastive typological, observation and interpretation, comparative contextual analysis and modelling as well were used.
Discussion
The tradition of describing sentence structure based on logical approaches, which was leading in Western European linguistics until the middle of the 20th century, entered Turkology, especially Uzbek
linguistics, through Russian linguistics. Opinions were expressed that the main clause is part of any sentence, and they are equal to the subject and predicate elements of the sentence. In the syntactic theories of Turkic languages, various disputable points arose between the theoretical ideas and the features of the existing concrete syntactic constructions (Yma acap -Ct.332-334.).
In languages such as English, German, and French, where the person-number category ofverbs is not developed, main clauses appear as a necessary element of the sentence, while in Turkish languages where the person-number categories of the verb are developed, including Uzbek, the subject of the sentence acquires a facultative character.
Acquaintance with English, Uzbek, Russian, German and other language grammars, dissertations, scientific treatises and analysis of the collected language materials show that the relations of concessive can be expressed through different types of phrases, simple and compound sentences(Kim-ball L. G. Structure of English sentence, New York, Chicago, American book company 1900). Regarding the semantic types of complex sentences with adverbial clause of concession, the views oflinguists are different, and it can be observed that their classification is based on different approaches. Jiri Nosek, relying on the semantics of subordinators connecting adverbial clauses of concession to superordinate clauses, divides adverbial clauses of concession into four main groups and they are complex sentences with pure concession; complex sentences with challenging concession, complex sentences with generalized concession; complex sentences with total concession.
According to J. Nosek, complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession with «though, although and albeit» express pure concession, while complex sentences with challenging concession have a stable and unchanging formula, which is the imperative form of the verb «be» from the pronominal subject «it» will consist of «it» It is followed by the
pronominal subject (it or that) connected by «as» and the modal verb may.
Generalized concession, according to J. Nosek, is expressed by complex sentences with adverbial clause of concession with however requiring an adverb after itself and its archaic form «howsoever». He believes that the main reason why other complex sentences with adverbial clause of concession with «soever, whatever, whoever, whichever» cannot belong to this group is that they come as an adverbial modifer of complex sentences with adverbial clause of concession with however.
The parts of the complex sentence with adverbial clauses of concession expressing total concession are connected by means of «even though, even if, even when». «The complex sentence with adverbial clauses of concession connected with «even though» indicates the maximum concession, the condition «even if» represents complete non-obstacle, the complex sentence with adverbial clauses of concession connected with «even when» has the meanings of temporality and concession, in which the meaning of the condition states that it has passed to a full concession.
Similarly, J. Nosek shows the existence of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession connected by the connectives «if, when, while» using the following examples: I don't care if I lose; He walks when be might ride.
He tried to to prove that concession can also be expressed not only by «in spite of the fact that», but also by «for all», but also by the example of «For all he seems to dislike me, I still like him».
P.B. Zandvoort, taking into account the existence of contradictory relations between the components of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, calls such sentences concrete complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession. Although he did not comment on the semantic types of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, P.B. Zandvoort «when» time and concession, «if» condition and concession, «for
all» concession or restriction, «as» time, cause, comparison, manner and writes that concessive dependent clauses can come as superordinate clauses. (Zandvoot,1996:220)
R. Quirk and others give the following definition to complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession: «Complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession express a contradiction between two situations (conditions), that is, the content of the main clause is unexpected from the point of view of the subordinate clause.» Although he hadn't eaten for days he (nevertheless) looked very fit. (Quirk, 1982:282)
The authors of the modern English grammar consider complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession as complex sentences with adverbial clauses of alternative condition-concession and universal condition-concession, which contain the subordinators «weather ... or...», in their opinion, these subordinators serve to express the meaning of the condition together with the meaning of the alternative in the structure of connecting the dependent clause to the superordinate clause. They illustrate this in the following examples: Weather they beat us or we beat him, we'll celebrate tonight; Whether or not he finds a job in New York, he's moving there.
By complex sentences with adverbial clauses of universal condition and concession, the authors mean complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession connected by means of conjunctions with «Wh» content (whatever, whoever). This means that complex sentences with adverbial clauses of universal condition and concession belonging to this group freely choose one of several conditions: She looks pretty whatever she wears. The meaning of this category of adverbial clauses of concession is clearly distinguished by the meaning of time and place, which the following authors described through examples: wherever you like, you can keep a horse. The locative meaning of this sentence is "You can keep a horse at any place where you may live", its meaning of condition and conces-
sion "It doesn't matter where you live, you can keep a horse not a nessarily in that same place". The sentences as "It doesn't matter wh and no matter wh are divided into types of adverbial clauses of universal condition and concession: No matter It doesn't matter ow hard I try, I can never catch up with him (Quirk, 1982: 285).
Well-known Russian experts in English syntax, N.A. Kobrina and E.A. Korneeva, give the following definition to complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, which are linguistic verbal-izers of concessive relations: «There is a contrast between the superordinate clause and dependent clause of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, the actions expressed in the superordinate clause or the fact are carried out or happen regardless of the condition expressed in the dependent clause» (Kobrina, 1965:168). They are based on the relationship between complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession and superordinate clause. Accordingly, they distinguish 4 types of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, that is, recognized clauses of adverbial concession, clauses of open concession, disjunctive concession or alternative concession and hypothetical or rejected concession. (Kobrina, Korneeva, 1965: 168).
According to them, in the first type of sentences, although the content of the superordinate and dependent clauses contradict each other, they both refer to facts. In this type of complex sentence with adverbial clause of concession (abnormal\ word order, especially with however, as, though are observed. Joseph could always eat, however excited she was; Dark as it was getting, I could still see there changes (Bronte); It was very sad to look upon and hear them; Happy though their condition unquestionably was (Ch. Dickens).
According to N.A. Kobrina and E.A. Korneeva, in addition to the tasks of connecting subordinators «however, as, though», they also perform the function of adverbial modifier of degree and measure. At the same time, when scholars interpret the adverbial
clause of concession as a word or group of words in the main sentence, in the last cited examples «Could eat, however excited she was, could see, dark as it was getting dark», in their opinion the adverbial clause of concession applies to the entire superordinate clause is also noteworthy. (Kobrina, Korneeva, 1965: 169).
By complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, N.A. Kobrina and E.A. Korneeva understand complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, in which the action of superordinate clauses takes place despite the meaning of an unreal condition and in such cases they emphasize that the part of the adverbial clause of concession is in the subjunctive mood. This category of sentences includes «no matter what might happen, whatever may be». (Kobrina, Korneeva, 1965: 170).
The subordinator «Whether ...or» presents two possible choices, both of which give rise to irreal or future-tense clauses of concession or, alternatively, complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession. Such complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession type express relations between the meanings of the components of the conflict or the possibility or rejection of which is a fact. If she got no money from her brother-in-law, she got what was as good as many-credit (Thackeray).
The authors of the Uzbek language grammar write that complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession are similar to each other, and the content of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession is similar to a compound sentence connected by adversitive conjunctions. (Uzbek Grammar, 1976:447-448). The authors call the adverbial clause of concession, which is connected to the main clause through the imperative form of the verb in the negative form a generalized concessive dependent clause. They list 5 types of this category of complex sentences.
The lexemes к;анча, к;анчалик ва дар к;анча, ;андай, дар кандай, нима, каерда, каерга, кимнинг ;ачон, ;ай ва;тда, ;ай томондан participating in
a dependent clause express quantity — degree or repetition, place, sign, person or object, summarizing the content of time: Кундузхон узини дар канча тутишга уринмасин, OFHp йукотишнинг азоби уни кийнар, эзар экан. (Said Ahmad); У каерга бормасин, иши унгидан кела беради.(УТИЛ,197б; 450); ^ачон караманг, кулида китоб. (УТИЛ, 197б: 450). Professor M. A. Abduvaliev classified complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession into two types: 1) Complex sentences with adverbial clauses of pure concession and 2) Complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession of the mixed type.
It predicate verb part of the generalized complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession can be doubled (one being in the conditional and the other in the imperative forms); ^аерга борса-борсин, уйга келмасин, ^ачон келса-келаверсин, эшигимиз очи;; Нима деса- десин, мен ундан воз кечмайман and others.
It is interesting to note that complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession can express not only two or three, but also several shades of meaning. For example, Ким каерда, ;ай ва;т, нимани укимасин, укишлар натижасида олинган билимлар даётда аскотади. (Subject-place-time-object-concession;) Кимда — ким нима сабабдан, качондир, кандай максадда, у ерда пайдо булмасин, у бизнинг назоратимиз остида булади. (Subject-place-time-cause-purpose-concession).
He determines, in turn, б types of complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession of the mixed type. They are attributive clauses with concession, object clauses with concession, subject clauses with concession, time clauses with concession, place clauses with concession and degree and measure clauses with concession and he described them with the materials of English and Uzbek: I invited the simplicity of his happiness or his mistery, whichever it might be. (G. Greene); ^андай санъат асарига кузим тушмасин, доим уни болалик билан улчагим келади. (А. ^обул);
I'll gladly pay whatever you agree to. (Th. Dreiser); yap HHMaHH ranAamMacHH 6apH 6np MeHra eK;MagH.(y XomuMOB). Whoever comes who the words to deal with the natives must use Indian fashions (I. Cooper); Bax;oAaHrKH, HAMy-yp^oH co^acngarH HHMaHH HXTupo Ba Kam^HeT 6yAMacHH, y oxup ogaMAap MaH^aara nyAHga e 6eBocHTa, e 6HABocrna xH3MaT KHAagH. (OaH Ba TypMym); My father gets very emotional even when he reads the newspaper. (I. Salinger); ^anoH ;apaMaHr, AAHmepHH ypH6 6ypHHHH KoHaTAH.(y. XomHMoB). Wherever she want, no one seemed to want any help. (Th. Dreiser); Kaepra 6opMacHH goHM, o3oga khhhhh6 ropagn; No matter how fast be runs, the wet feet will freeze the harder. (J. London); KyTapH6 KeAaeTraH naxTacH KarnaAHK ornp 6yAMacHH, y KyAn6, ne;pacn nopAa6 KeAapgH. (N. Kobul).
Among the syntactic level units that verbalize the concept of concession, simple sentences with the concessive clause occupy an important place. In the compared languages, such sentences have a unique structure of lexical and grammatical means. The analysis showed that in English the adverbial modifier of concession is objectified through the following means:
1) Subordinator and non-finite forms of the verb expressing concession explicitly (with participle I and II, and gerund);
2) Through the combination of subordinators and lexical units (noun, adjective, number, adverb, etc.) that express concession explicitly;
3) Prepositional compounds
4) Concession implicitly through the combination of subordinators and non-finite forms of the verb.
R. Quirk and others call such sentences "non-finite and verbless clauses of concession (The component of complex sentence with adverbial clause of concession — adverbial clause of concession) [Quirk 1982; 284-2859 R. Close calls it "shortened contrast clause"]. In our opinion, it would be appropriate to call such sentences as simple extended
sentences with a concessive part. In such sentences, concessive part with a complex structure acts as an adverbial modifier of concession. Almost all pure concession subordinators of analysis (except for the subordinator «though, as» in the inversion case) appear as an important element of the adverbial modifier of concession: Ah! What are words to love like mine, Though uttered by a voice like thine [L. Byron 1966: 10]; Though marveling at the name of Magna Chorta, yet well he recollects the laws of Sparta [L. Byron 1966:29]; Though drinking deeply, thirsting still the more, yet when confinements lingering hour was done [L. Byron 1966: 97];
Such simple extended sentences express concessive relationships with one or two propositions like complex sentences with adverbial clause of concession: Even if everything bitterly, she did not forget eating; Although well- known in his country, he went on making success.
The usual place of the adverbial modifier of concession in the sentence is at the beginning of the sentence, and in some cases it appears in the middle and at the end of the sentence:
This type of adverbial modifier of concession is formed in the following models:
Concessive conj+VpI; Concessive Conj+VpII; Concessive Conj+ Gerund
Concession and pure concession subordinators and combinations with nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numbers, and adverbs are common in English. Oh! Would it stone to lead me still, although death or deadliest ill! [L.Byron 1966.138]. Though few the members theirs the strige, hat neither spares nor speaks for life [L. Byron 1966.116]; Though soft it seemed the low prophetic dirge [L. Byron 1966.241].
This type of concession has the following basic models: Concessive Conj. +N; Concessive Conj. +Adj; Concessive Conj. =Prn; Concessive Conj. +Adv. They express the semantics of concession when the prepositions in spite of, despite, irrespective of, for all, with all, notwithstanding are linked with
nouns: I admire him, in spite of his faults; The lost the fight, for all his boasting.
It is worth noting that among them, «in spite of» is characteristic of all speech styles. The preposition «Despite» is typical to formal style, while «not with it standing» is more typical to legal texts. «For all» and «with all» are mostly used colloquially. This category of prepositions is based on the following models: Pred+ N; Part ing prep+P1
The interrogative pronouns used to express various adverbial and non-adverbial meanings together, and the «ever» adverb and connectives, which appeared from the adverbial combination, also serve to express concession in the structure of a simple sentence: Whatever your problems they can't be worse than mine; However great the pitfalls, we must do our best to succeed [Quirk 1982: 285]; Whater the weapon, cudgel, fist, or fail, non reach expertness without years of tail[L. Byron 1966.434].
«No matter and wh-, No matter how» also perform the function of a concessive part with a mixed meaning in a simple sentence: No matter how young, It is one of the things she wholly comprehends[Dreiser SC:25], If passion met not some reward -no matter how or where, or why, I did not warmly seek, nor sigh [L. Byron 1966: 133] No matter, throw your ornaments aside[L. Byron 1966: 447].
The authors of Uzbek Language Grammar (Vol. II, 1976) state that they are similar to adverbial clauses in terms of intonation with adverbial modifier of concession. However, as they do not have a subject and predicate relation, they are not considered subordinate clauses, but detached parts: [Uzbek Grammar 1976:154]
Adverbial modifier of concession is expressed by adding the particles «;aM» or «;aMAa» to the conditional form of the verb, the form of the participle with the affixes «-(h)6» and «(a)«», by the construction with the participle and the suffix containing the words «6uA.aH», «-ra KapaMa«, KapaMacgaH». y ;yp;ca ;aM y3HHH Kyp;MacAHKKa
coAgn; y MeHHHr obo3hmhh amuTca-ga, HHgaMagu; Kypa -6HAa TypH6 6enapBo 6yAgH; y em 6yAraHH 6HAaH ^yga Kyn khto6hh yKu6 HHKKaH; Kum HHAAacHHHHr coByrura ;apaMacgaH, acTonguA umAa6 6hhohh 6uTKa3gHK ["TomKeHT 6uHoKopu"] [Uzbek Grammar, 1976: 153-154].
In the expression of the meaning of concession, the compounds with the auxiliaries ";apmu, KapaMan, ;apaMacgaH, apama" play an important role.
For example, the compounds with «;apmu» represents an action, a situation that is concessive to the content understood through the part of the sentence. The auxiliary «;apmu» governs a past participle or a noun: Kh3hh, yHHHr xo;umura ;apmu, TypMymra 6epu6 ro6opguAap.
In combinations with auxiliaries "KapaMan, KapaMacgaH" the governed part is usually expressed by a noun, a gerund, a past participle. The governed word is in the dative case: Эpтacн Ky^AH 6om orpurura KapaMan, AMup MyryA Ky^cu3 ;apaKaTra Tymgu [On6eK]; y em 6yAHmura KapaMan ^yga a;AAH; khhhm 6omu эcкн 6yAumura KapaMacgaH, o3oga эAн.
As is seen from the last two examples, the governed word does not come with «6yAMoK. In this case, when the conjunction expresses the past tense, it takes the form of the adjective, when it expresses the present tense, it takes the form —m(-um). Sometimes a possessive suffix (mainly in the 3rd person form) can appear in the conjunction. The combination of the demonstrative pronoun "my (myHgan, myHra) and "KapaMan, KapaMacgaH" has the semantics of concession. Such conjunctions come as a separate part, the above conjunctions come as connecting devices that put two or more sentences into a meaningful and structural relationship with each other (instead of the previous sentence, the content is contrary to it) in the text. The combinations "myHgan эca-Aa, myHgan 6yAca ;aM" also express concessive relations between two or more sentences: y ^yga em. fflyHra KapaMan, KaTTaAapgeK
^uKpAangu; y 6eTo6 ЭAн. fflyHgan эca-Aa, yKumra 6opgu.
Also, «apama» while is used with a participle or a gerund expresses the meaning of concession. In such cases, the verb is in the dative case. Kyn yKHAraHHra apama 6hahmh cae3; TyH-y- KyH umAaraHHra apama y Ho^op amangu.
The combinations with the auxiliary word "6uAaH" (participle (II)+6uAaH) may also express the meaning of concession: BomKaAapra xyMpanu6 KaparaHH 6uAaH, Hapca anTMagH.[yTr, II 1976: 63]
Results
The word "KaTi>H Ha3ap" governs the noun, gerund and participle and expresses the meaning of concession: AeKHH, 6yHgaH KaT^un Ha3ap xyKyMaTra epgaM 6epum 6u3HHHr 6upuHHH Ba3H^aMH3 6yAumu KepaK. (Oybek).
It should be noted that the meaning of concession, as in complex sentences with adverbial clauses of concession, is combined with the interrogative pronouns and words «KapaMan, KapaMacgaH, 6uAaH, KaTT>Hn Ha3ap» and express mixed meanings of degree and measure, time, place, purpose, manner, object, subject, attribute. y ;ap Kama ;apaKaT KHAraHH 6uAaH, umHH BaKTuga TyraTa oAMagu; y Ka^oH KeAumugaH Karbun Ha3ap, hmhh 6yryH TyraTHmHMH3 KepaK; Kaepga, Kan a;BoAga aKaHAHrugaH KaT^un Ha3ap, Mauum xypMam эxlmuром 6uAan 3a$n эmuAдu.
Kan 6upuHH (KanTumuHu) TaHAamHH 6uAMaraHH 6uAaH энr axmucuHH-TaHAamu aHHK ЭAн. Xjap KaHgan a3o6HH eHrumra Tanep aKaHAurura KapaMan, mu^oKopAap 6yHH xo;AaMaguAap; ByHH ;ap khm 6uAraHH 6uAaH MeH 6uAManMaH; MaKcaguMH3 a3ryAHK 6yAraHH 6uAaH 6yHH ;aMMa ;aM TymyHu6 eTMangu.
Such simple extended sentences of mixed type implicitly express concession.
«whether ..or» expressing the meaning of generalized alternative concession also acts as an adverbial modifier in a simple sentence: whether (living)
in London or not, John enjoyed himself [Quirk tired or no tired, you can always do thing... [B. Shaw
1982:285];
There are cases where «whether» is also dropped in colloquial speech style: Gentleman or no gentleman, Patsy what are your intentions? [B. Shaw 1972: 239] You see, sleep or no sleep, hunger or no hunger,
1976:30]
Syntactic means that express concessive relations have systemic relations with one another. One can observe the following rows of synonyms (13 in English, II in Uzbek) among syntactic constructions. For example:
I. Carrie shook her head in spite of her distress Carrie shook her head despite her distress. Carrie shook her head regardless of her distress. Carrie shook her head irrespective of her distress. Carrie shook her head not with standing her distress.
II. KeAaMaH ge6 KeAMaguHr KeAaMaH gecaHr xaM KeAMaguHr KeAaMaH gecaHrga KeAMaguHr KeAaMaH geraHHHr 6uAaH KeAMaguHr KeAaMaH gecaHr xaMKu KeAMaguHr
KeAaMaH geguHr, AeKHH (6upo;, aMMo) KeAMaguHr Vfut+geguHr+ AeKHH (6upo;, aMMo) + Vneg KeAaMaH geraHHHra ;apaMan, KeAMaguHr KeAaMaH geraHHHra ;apaMacgaH, KeAMaguHr
Conclusion
N/prn+V+ in spite of +N N/prn+V+ despite +N N/prn+V+ regardless of+N N/prn+V+ irrespective of+N N/prn+V+ not with standing+N Vfut+ge6+N/prn+Vneg Vfut +gecaHr+xaM+Vneg Vfut +gecaHr+ga+Vneg Vfut +деганинг билан+Vneg Vfut+gесaнг+хaм+ки+Vneg
Vfut+деганинга +rçapaMaft+Vneg Vfut+дегaнингa+rçaрaмaсдaн+Vneg
independent sentences at least with concessive English, Uzbek and other world languagess possess relations. a wide set of syntactic constructions with simple They form the nominative field of the concept and composite structures. To them belong simple of concession, the constituents of which possess sentences with concessive parts, adverbial clauses of systematic relations with one another. They are pure concession, adverbial and non-adverbial clauses formed in accordance with the language rules of with mixed concessive component, compound the compared languages. Isomorphic, allomorphic sentences with adversative conjunctions and two and specific features help experts to develop general
theory of linguistic conceptology.
References
1. Амосова Н. Н. Основы английской фразеологии. - Ленингрaд: Изgaтельство Ленингрagского университета, 1983. - 208 с.
2. Бабушкин А. П., Стернин И. А. Когнитивная лингвистика и семасиология. - Воронеж: ООО «Ритм», 2018. - 229 с.
3. Богородицкий В. А., Общий курс русской грамматики, Москва, -Л., 1935,-Ст.230
4. Влавацкая М. В. Типы концепта и понятие сочетаемости В сб. Язык и национальное сознание Вып. 14. - Воронеж: Истоки, 2010. - С. 14-26.
5. Влавацкая Марина Витальевна. Юбилейный библиографический указатель Книги, статьи и друг^ работы за 1998-2021 гг. Новосибирск 2021.
6. Колшанский Г. В. О прироgе контекста // Вопросы языкознания, 1959. № 4.
7. Мaхмуgов Н. Эргаш гапли ^ушма гаплар. Узбек тилининг мазмуний синтаксиси. -Т.: Фан, 1992.
8. Нурмонов А., Мaхмуgов Н., Ахмеgов А., Солихужаева С., Узбек тилшунослигининг мазмуний синтаксиси, Т., Фан.,- Б. 222.
9. Новосибирский госуgaрственный технический университет научная библиотека им. Г.П. Лыщин-ского.
10. Kimball L. G. Structure of English sentence, New York, Chicago, American book company 1900;
11. Пименева М. В. Методология концептуальных исслеgовaний В. Антология концептов. Том 1. -Волгогрag: Парадигма, 2005. - С. 7-19.
12. Попова З. Д., Стернин И. А. Когнитивная лингвистика. Учебное издание. Москва АСТ: «Восток-Запад» 2007.
13. Поспелов Н. С., О грамматической природе, сложного предложения. Сборник «Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка» М., 1950, -Ст.330
14. Sweet H. 1891, P. Goyen 1894, J. Nesfield 1954, T. Thompson 1956, Onions 1978, V. Pritian 1980
15. Топорова В. М. Методика исследования концептуальных блоков В.сб. Язык и национальное сознание. Вып. 14. - Воронеж: Истоки, 2010. - С. 40-48.
16. Узбек тилининг изодли лугати, УТИЛ, 1976, Тошкент, 1 ^исм.
