Linguistic Essence as a Set of Generalities and the Integral

Realization of Linguistic Potential in Speech

N. R. Musulmonova and M. B. Shodmonova

Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature named after Alisher Navoi, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Generality, Specificity, Language, Speech, the Great, Tajalli, Cognitive Knowledge, Empirical Knowledge,

Philosophy of Linguistics, Mysticism, Thinking, Apparent Meaning, Substance, Accident, Category,

Grammatical Category, Categorical Meaning, Relative Meaning, Accompanying Meaning.

Abstract: This article explores the linguistic essence, defined as a set of generalities and categories. It addresses the

execution of language potential in speech, substance, and action, examining types and meanings, speech and

language units, cognitive and practical knowledge, perceptual and theoretical knowledge, general and specific

grammatical meanings, and the general conclusions influencing them. The perspective of linguistic

philosophy is used to interpret some of the grammatical categories present in the grammar of the Uzbek

language today. Given the central position of the concepts of universality and essence in dialectical categories,

as well as their consistently different perceptions, there is an apparent need to emphasise the distinctions

between categorical, relative, and incidental meanings in grammatical form. This need underlines the

importance of focusing on the problem as a methodological foundation. In Uzbek linguistics, it is traditional

to consider the linguistic aspect of a linguistic unit as universal and essential, while its verbal implementation

is viewed as particular and a phenomenon. This approach is reflected in a vast amount of research, educational,

and methodological literature underpinning this direction. In many cases, the categories of generality and

essence are interpreted as being synonymous with each other, encapsulating the linguistic community and the

linguistic essence.

1 INTRODUCTION

The emotional, perceptual, and practical knowledge

that we understand, including perceptual or

theoretical knowledge [10,7,1], has not been excluded

from the sphere of linguistics, as is the case in all

fields. Emotional and practical knowledge are

actualised through the senses, where signals are

perceived and synthesised to form theoretical

knowledge. Is it feasible to standardise diverse

private and general viewpoints, that is, to propose the

same concept to several people? Indeed, what are

privacy and commonality? Philosophical linguists

provide the following answer to this question.

These two terms, often encountered throughout life,

specifically, the particular and common in dialectics,

and kull and juz in Sufism, are highly significant

categories. Without them, it is impossible to

Corresponding author

comprehend philosophy, mysticism, the theory of

cognition, and the essence of various phenomena.

2 METHODS

Any object, sign-property, event or occurrence that a

person can perceive, hear, feel, or observe is a

characteristic.

There are three main tenets of privacy:

• Materiality and presentation in direct

observation.

• Uniqueness and distinctiveness.

• Limitation and countlessness (Nurmonov A.,

Shahobiddinova Sh., Iskandarova Sh., Nabieva D.,

2001).

Musulmonova, N. and Shodmonova, M.

Linguistic Essence as a Set of Generalities and the Integral Realization of Linguistic Potential in Speech.

DOI: 10.5220/0012487800003792

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR 2023), pages 361-365

ISBN: 978-989-758-687-3

361

Scientist Sh. Shahrobidinova, who considered these

signs of privacy using the example of a "tree",

describes it as follows: A specific 'tree' is a unique

entity, situated before us at a certain time, in a specific

place, under particular conditions, with a unique form

and appearance, at a given stage of development; that

is, it is a plant. We can see it, smell it, touch it, and

even move it from one place to another or climb it.

Any plant undergoes various stages of development,

such as planting, greening, blooming, fruiting (if it is

a fruit-bearing plant), drying, and shedding leaves,

etc.

This process can be repeated multiple times, but no

plant lasts forever. We are keenly aware that the tree,

taken as an example, has a material form, i.e., it

consists of certain (organic and inorganic) substances

that form the root, trunk, branches, and leaves. The

substance of the tree is also composed of these

materials. Without these materials, the private tree

wouldn't exist.

While a single tree exists as a characteristic, particles

of various substances (entities) are intermixed with a

part of the common tree. It includes colour,

chlorophyll, water, and various organic and inorganic

substances, making it difficult to distinguish the

corresponding characteristic of the tree's substance

from other 'foreign' characteristics. But when

imagination falls short, thinking steps in. Generally,

imagination is incapable of defining the essence of

anything. Simultaneously, each characteristic is

unique and distinctive. Suppose we planted two

identical trees at the same time. They started to grow

and eventually bloomed. But are they identical? No,

they are two separate entities. Because if one of the

trees dries up or is cut down, the other continues to

grow.

The distinguishing and non-repetitive characteristic

of the private 'tree' is that they are different, growing,

developing, blooming, situated in different spaces,

under different conditions, and do not replicate each

other; hence, they are two separate trees.

Private "tree" - limitless and innumerable. No matter

how many trees there are in the world, the more trees

there are, the more private "trees" there are.

There is a saying in mysticism: you cannot step into

the same river twice, meaning, you cannot step into

the flowing water again. This is also an example of

privacy. A phrase can be repeated two or three times

exactly the same as the first time. But each utterance

is a separate characteristic because they occur at

different times.

In philosophy, the unique instances presented by

direct observation are denoted by the term 'action',

and in mysticism, the term 'taghalli' [7, 1].

In mysticism, privacy possesses, above all, the

property of manifestation. Hazrat Navoi states that

the descendants of the Haka family have permeated

the essence, and it has manifested, say, like Lili.

It seems that in the poet's eyes, all the words borcha,

jilva, ayn, sen - you, husn - beauty, manzur -

delighted, and adad - number are existences that

directly affect the senses, akin to privacy.

For instance, if the essence of water is one, it extends

to and exists in the whole world of beings, animals,

and plants.

Implementation, like privacy, cannot exist in a pure

form. Any implementation is multifaceted. Just as no

chemical element can exist in a pure form, reality can

exist only when it is intermingled with other realities.

In the masnawi "Lison ut-Tair" by Alisher Navoi,

considering the presence of the substance of Simurgh,

along with its sign in birds journeying towards

Simurgh, as well as other foreign manifestations

(such as 'me', 'self', and other satanic feelings), bird

after bird aims to shed "begona" symptoms when

passing symbolic valleys along the way. When the

birds are freed, only the substance Simurgh remains.

Then, there is no distinction, no impediment, i.e., a

combined characteristic between the corresponding

(Simurgh) substance and its manifestation. This is

analogous to the chemical purification of a substance

in nature and the extraction of the appropriate element

from it.

In water (H2O), two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen

atom form a strong bond. If water is not chemically

pure water, then it is mixed with an infinite number

of other things - minerals, bacteria, salts, etc. How

challenging it is to isolate the chemical water itself

(H2O). This is akin to the liberation of a person from

vices that do not correspond to God in their

consciousness.

If two elements in the chemical water are removed

from the sample, either oxygen or hydrogen remains.

Nothing remains to prevent them from connecting to

their substance.

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

362

The combination of different accidents significantly

increases the number of things and events. It is

challenging to understand that these 'multiplicities' do

not always belong to the essence of the subject under

study. Otherwise, contemporary linguistics would not

differentiate, for example, more than 10 categories of

time, 7-8 forms of adverbs, and more than 50 types of

indicative agreement.

The concept of substance and action, the correct

understanding, and comprehension of their

interaction, as in other sciences, acquire significant

methodological importance in linguistics in the direct

observation of the phenomenon and its underlying

essence. Since the main objective of our research is to

distinguish between categorical, adjuvant, and

concomitant meanings in grammatical forms, the

dialectic of gnoseological substance and randomness

becomes our primary methodological content. It is

also crucial to understand correctly the relationship of

the categories of generality and essence, inherent in

the substance, and to use it as a methodological factor

in determining the relationship of the categorical and

non-categorical value.

3 OBSERVATIONS AND

DISCUSSION

The systematic approach to language is based on

dialectics and cognitive theory as a methodological

foundation. The categories of dialectics, in particular,

the concepts of universality and essence, occupy a

central position. Focusing on the problem as a

methodological basis is necessary given the

importance of consistently differentiating our

research source's perception - categorical, adjuvant,

and concomitant meanings in grammatical form.

In Uzbek linguistics, it has become a tradition to

regard the linguistic aspect of a linguistic unit as

universal and essential, and its verbal implementation

as particular and a phenomenon. This perspective is

reflected in a substantial amount of research,

educational, and methodological literature based on

this approach's principles. In many cases, the

categories of generality and essence are interpreted as

synonymous with each other: linguistic community,

as well as linguistic essence.

In studies of systematic linguistics, instances of

differentiation of these categories are rare, and they

mostly use these two categories as a semantic unit,

permitting an epistemological error.

Let's consider the evidence. S.N. Ivanov, the founder

of the subject study of Turkic languages, writes:

"Dialectical materialism and dialectical logic reject

the interpretation of generality as an abstraction

contrary to a specific object and phenomenon. We

observe this when analysing human understanding"

(Ivanov S.N., 1969).

It appears that the scientist, when discussing the

universal, cites about the essence and interprets the

concepts of universality and essence as a

phenomenon: "Dialectical logic asserts that in real

existence, there is an objective (independent of the

thinker) analogue of theoretical knowledge, which

does not correspond to perceptual observation of

facts. This analogue is such a generality, the essence

of things that are perceived emotionally" [3, 19].

Because, according to the scientist, "when they talk

about the 'concealment' of the essence, they do not

mean that it is a purely inner substance, and the

essence is such a universal that it is, as it were, hidden

in these phenomena upon direct observation"

(Zikrillaev G.N., 1994). However, in the

methodological source upon which the scientist

relied, the essence "appears not as a separate

phenomenon but as a single basis of many

phenomena and their connections."

In modern Uzbek linguistics, the application of the

category of philosophical generality and essence to

the linguistic phenomenon was consistently

continued in the studies of H. Nematov, A.

Nurmonov, N. Makhmudov, R. Saifullayeva, and

their followers. The aim is primarily to restore the

characteristic language unit of generality (general

grammatical value, general syntactic model, general

lexical value), and the essence of a linguistic

phenomenon means its linguistic generality. "From

the perspective of the attitude to the paradigmatic

meaning of the grammatical form, the meaning of the

grammatical category stands as generality. The

paradigmatic meaning of a grammatical category

comes from its relationship with another grammatical

category. The essence of the grammatical form

(category) manifests itself not only in direct but also

in indirect relationships" [Nigmatov Kh.G. (1989).].

"PGM is evident for our observations, so it seems

more precise. However, dialectics interpret abstract

and specific concepts differently than usual. For

dialectics, there is nothing more abstract than the idea

of something unrelated. Because this imagination

cannot yield an objective knowledge of things. And

clarity is not an approximate, emotionally limited

perception of a thing, but a system that encompasses

Linguistic Essence as a Set of Generalities and the Integral Realization of Linguistic Potential in Speech

363

all its manifestations and unifies these phenomena.

Because of this, an essence that seems extremely

abstract and far-fetched at first sight (emphasis ours)

becomes clearer and more apparent as the

investigation deepens" (Shahobiddinova Sh., 1993).

It appears that even in the works of linguists, the

categories of essence and universality are not

consistently differentiated.

There are numerous such examples. In Uzbek

linguistics, for instance, the category of essence and

generality is employed as an interchangeable term.

In philosophical literature, the categories of

universality and essence are consistently

differentiated (Tursunov U., Mukhtorov A.,

Rahmatullaev Sh., 1992). Therefore, in all

philosophical literature dedicated to the nature of

categories, particular attention is devoted to their

mutual attitude and characteristics. To limit the

analysis of a vast number of scientific sources on the

problem's interpretation, let's direct the readers'

attention to the most significant ones [1, 12, 9] and

endeavour to clarify the main distinction. In

philosophical literature, generality is "a collection of

objectively existing aspects, properties, and

characteristics of objective reality, shared by all or

several things and phenomena, and the similarity of

connections and relations between them," whereas

essence is - the deep, relatively stable relationships

occurring in various phenomena of the material

world, concealed within the phenomenon. It is

defined as the inner side of reality (Tulenov J.,

Gafurov Z., 1997). From the comments, it is apparent

that the restoration of community is directly based on

particulars. Therefore, the categories of generality

and essence differ in terms of their inclusivity, and if

the essence contains the most characteristic aspect,

the universality distinguishes itself from it by

"quantity".

It is known that commonality is restored by

eliminating differences and generalising similarities

in the given particulars with direct observation. The

essence, as in all categorical meanings, is determined

not based on the specifics provided by direct

observation, but based on the consideration of the

definable thing in its own system, and in the case of

linguistic phenomena - based on their relationship

with their paradigmatic analogues. Therefore, the

definition of essence is based on universality, and one

cannot proceed to the definition of essence without

restoring universality. As the dialectic says, "All

commonality is not directly part of the essence, but

the essence cannot be outside the universality"

(Tulenov J., Gafurov Z., 1997). Commonality

includes aspects that are essentially trivial but

repetitive.

Let's propose that the generality of "tree" also

includes the uniqueness of the fruit and body

structure. However, the thick and solid trunk that

distinguishes a tree from any other species of plant is

its essence. Trees can also have common

characteristics such as leaves, branches, fruits, colour,

smell, etc. But none of these can be a sign of its shape

because these properties can also be found in shrubs

and grasses. It seems that the commonality is richer

than the essence, but the essence is deeper than the

generality. For instance, the lexeme "notebook" as a

linguistic unit has a general meaning "the name of the

educational manual from sheets, bound, designed for

writing and expressions of the human heart's

experiences." However, one facet of the two-sided

commonality - the sememe "a textbook of sheets,

bound, designed for writing" is the essence of this

token, distinguishing it from paradigmatic analogues.

The value of "expression of the experience of the

human heart" is derived from the sememe and

sememes adjacent to the previous sememe, which

together make up the set of tokens "notebook."

Although the second sememe is a component of token

integrity, it is not part of the token substance.

In a formal-functional approach, it is known that it is

necessary to reveal the essence of a linguistic unit in

two stages. Sh. Shahrobidinova recommends a two-

stage method of restoring the total value of the

morpheme: "At the first stage, you should observe the

features. But observation of particulars alone cannot

disclose to us the essence of the universal. Once the

dialectical traits are noticed, they need to be

considered as a whole. Particularity, in general, can

only be considered on the basis of the essence of

community. The essence of generality (highlighted by

us - N. M.) can only be revealed in relation to the

known commonality with similar and different

commonalities" (Shahobiddinova Sh., 1995).

The value of a linguistic unit is revealed in relation to

the total value of another linguistic unit in the

paradigm.

In grammatical interpretation, the general

grammatical meaning of the category of agreement is

"linking a subordinate noun to a dominant noun and

expressing various meanings of the subject, object,

space, time, and tools", and the general grammatical

meaning of the possessive category is "the connection

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

364

of the subsequent word with the preceding word for

the expression of belonging". Based on the syntactic

nature of the category and the fact that it is not alone

in the expression of the second part of values, both

categories are compared and examined relative to

each other, and in comparison, appears "connecting

the preceding word to the subsequent word (case),

connecting the subsequent word to the preceding

word (possessive case)". This symbol is a fragment

arising from the community relationship, and, in

reality, it is the essence of categories.

Thus, it transpires that, as in all linguistic units, in

grammatical form, the general grammatical value

consists of the essence and the extraneous aspect. If

language is the essence of the categorical aspect in the

general grammatical meaning, the part that is not

related to the essence of the general grammatical

meaning should be evaluated as a non-categorical

phenomenon.

4 CONCLUSION

The philosophical basis of the complexity of the

general grammatical meaning lies in the philosophy

that studies the most general laws of the development

of nature, society, and thought. It teaches that

everything in existence is not pure, and that in every

single, discrete entity, there are particles of

commonalities: mixed particulars. It is possible that

the form, appearance, and materiality of a thing are so

conspicuous that they obstruct the view of its essence.

Regardless, this situation misleads the observer.

Therefore, the student, equipped with special

techniques, mentally disregards "extraneous"

phenomena and tends to focus on the essence.

Regarding substance, the first two concepts,

universality and essence, which engender various

debates in philosophy itself, are in most cases

expressed without distinction. This leads to a failure

to differentiate between the essence and commonality

of linguistic units, which are purely linguistic

properties, and to their conflation. Universality is the

linguistic meaning of unity, encompassing both the

essence and the aspect which is outside the essence

but dialectically connected with it.

Therefore, such an understanding and the consistent

and correct application of the categories of

philosophical substance, universality, and essence in

linguistics allow us to fully elucidate the nature of

linguistic unity. This is achieved in two stages. In the

first stage, they distinguish a particle of pure

linguistic commonality and "extraneous" phenomena

mixed in a linguistic unit; in the second stage, they

differentiate the essence and the associated aspect of

linguistic commonality.

REFERENCES

Vahidov R., Nematov H., Mahmudov M. (2001).

Enlightenment in the Bosom of Words. – Tashkent:

Yozuvchi, – p. 13.

Zikrillaev G.N. (1994).Morphology of the Uzbek language.

Handbook for philological specialties. – Bukhara. – p.

19.

Ivanov S.N. (1969). Genealogical tree of the Turks of

Abdul-Ghazi-Khan. Grammar essay. Name and verb. –

Tashkent: Fan,– p. 13.

Mengliyev B. R. (2003). Structural Syntax of the Uzbek

language. Study guide. – Karshi: Nasaf.– p. 3.

Musulmanova N. (2012). Categorical, Adjunctive and

Accompanying Meaning in Grammatical Forms (In the

example of tense and Mood Categories). Monograph. –

Tashkent.: Science, – p. 80.

Musulmanova N.R. (2020). The Structure of the General

Meaning of the Categories of Tense and Mood in the

Uzbek Language. // Bulletin of Science and Education.

No. 2 (80). – p. 36-40.

Nematov H.G. (1993). Tajalli Sufism Theory of Cognition

and Issues of Learning Syntax in Linguistics // Uzbek

Language and Literature. No. 2. – p. 28.

Nigmatov Kh.G. (1989). Functional Morphology of the

Turkic-Speaking Monuments of the XI-XII Centuries.

– Tashkent: Fan, – p. 5.

Nurmonov A., Shahobiddinova Sh., Iskandarova Sh.,

Nabieva D. (2001).Theoretical grammar of the Uzbek

Language. Morphology. – Tashkent: New Age

Generation, – p. 20.

Tulenov J., Gafurov Z. (1997). Philosophy. – Tashkent:

Teacher,– p. 45.

Tursunov U., Mukhtorov A., Rahmatullaev Sh. (1992).

Modern Uzbek Literary Language. Textbook for

Higher Educational Institutions. 3rd edition. –

Tashkent: Uzbekistan, – p. 335.

Shahobiddinova Sh. (1993). On the interpretation of

grammatical meaning: Candidate of Philological. Diss.

– Samarkand.– p. 19.

Shahobiddinova Sh. (1995) Stepwise Abstraction as a Way

of Uncovering General Grammatical Meaning. // Uzbek

Language and Literature. #3. 12-13 p.

Linguistic Essence as a Set of Generalities and the Integral Realization of Linguistic Potential in Speech

365