Suffixal Derivation in French and Uzbek Languages

Kavilova Laura-Aquilina and Kavilova Tamara

Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Jizzakh, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Suffixal Derivation, Affixation, Argotic Elements, Pejorative Meaning, Word-Forming Morphemes.

Abstract: The article delves into the application of argotic suffixes and prefixes as derivational mechanisms for

conveying emotional and evaluative sentiments toward the designated object. The authors systematically

pinpoint the argotic suffixes that prove to be particularly effective in conveying estimation. Additionally, the

article sheds light on the unique trajectories through which these suffixes have been integrated into the current

grammatical structures of both French and Uzbek languages. Language, as a powerful medium of

communication, not only conveys information but also serves as a rich tapestry of expressions that reflect our

emotions and evaluations. One intriguing facet of linguistic evolution involves the use of argotic suffixes and

prefixes, which serve as potent derivational tools for articulating our emotional and evaluative relationships

towards the designated object. This article delves into the multifaceted realm of argotic linguistic elements,

exploring how they enhance our ability to express subjective sentiments.

1 INTRODUCTION

Among the Romance languages, French stands out as

having diverged the farthest from its Latin origins,

primarily due to the influence of Germanic languages,

notably Frankish. The region of Gaul experienced

significant impact from the invasions of Germanic

tribes around the 5th century, with the Franks

emerging as the most dominant among them.

Interestingly, unlike the replacement of Gaulish by

Latin, the Gallo-Romance language did not yield

entirely to the language of the invaders. Instead,

Frankish coexisted with Romance before gradually

fading away over the subsequent centuries.

Remarkably, despite the gradual disappearance of

Frankish, it left a lasting imprint on the French

language. Over 600 words, particularly related to

rural life (e.g., wheat), parts of the body (e.g., chine),

clothing (e.g., scarf), feelings or chivalrous character

(e.g., hardi), weaponry (e.g., spear), war (e.g., truce),

and colors (e.g., blue), continue to be part of the

French vocabulary today[3]. Additionally, beyond

individual words, the Franks contributed prefixes

such as mé- (e.g., discontent) and suffixes like -aud

(e.g., badaud), -an (e.g., peasant), and -ard (e.g., old

man) to the French language (Dubois, J., F. 1999).

This article seeks to delve deeper into the

examination of suffixes. According to Le Petit

Robert, suffixes are described as elements of

Germanic origin that impart a pejorative or vulgar

nuance to nouns and adjectives (Kurt Glaser. 1910).

This prompts several inquiries: Do words ending in

certain suffixes indeed carry pejorative connotations

based on their origins? In which types of words are

these suffixes commonly found? Are there instances

where they are not employed in a pejorative sense?

Furthermore, how have the meanings of medieval

words evolved over time? Our initial hypothesis

posits that the suffix inherently carries a pejorative

nuance in French, a notion that warrants further

exploration.

In this introductory section, we have consulted a

range of works, including "History of the French

language, T.1 From the Latin era to the Renaissance"

(1905) by Ferdinand Brunot, "Evolution and structure

of the French language" (1993) by Walther von

Wartburg, "History of the French language" (2002)

by Mireille Huchon, "Introduction to the history of

the French language" (2016) by Michèle Perret, and

"Le nouveau Petit Robert" (2007) by Paul Robert.

For the theoretical foundation of this article, our

primary references will include "Methodical

Grammar of French" (2009) by Martin Riegel, Jean-

Christophe Pellat, and René Rioul, "Historical

Grammar of the French Language" (1908) by

Kristoffer Nyrop, "Elements of Romance

Linguistics" (1967) by Édouard Bourciez, "Suffixal

150

Laura-Aquilina, K. and Tamara, K.

Sufﬁxal Derivation in French and Uzbek Languages.

DOI: 10.5220/0012684100003882

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

In Proceedings of the 2nd Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR-2 2023), pages 150-156

ISBN: 978-989-758-723-8

derivation in French" (1999) by Jean Dubois and

Françoise Dubois-Charlier.

Additionally, we will draw insights from "History

of the French Language" (1930) by Albert Dauzat and

"The Adventure of French Words from Elsewhere"

(1997) by Henriette Walter. Notably, the research

titled "The pejorative meaning of the suffix -ard in

French" (1910) by Kurt Glaser, being the sole work

exclusively dedicated to this suffix, merits a distinct

section within the theoretical framework.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Kurt Glaser's study, "The pejorative meaning of the

suffix -ard in French," published in the journal

Romanische Forschungen in 1910, stands as the sole

comprehensive exploration of the -ard suffix,

providing valuable insights. In this research, the

Romanist Glaser scrutinizes words ending in -ard,

tracing their usage from Old French to the

contemporary era, specifically those he deems to

carry a pejorative connotation. Addressing the

challenges posed by the sometimes unclear

etymology of -ard words, we focuse solely on those

with well-established etymologies.

By "pejorative," we refer to that which degrades

meaning, is interpreted negatively, or implies

denigration. While cataloging non- derogatory -ard

words, he includes those indicating a property (e.g.,

bécard, "salmon with a long hooked projection of the

lower jaw"), a quality (péchard), an augmentative

meaning (fauchard, “large scythe”), and diminutive

meaning (chevrillard, “small deer”), noting the

relative rarity of the latter.

Glaser highlights the widespread usage of the - ard

suffix throughout history, contributing numerous

innovative words to colloquial language, a

phenomenon often overlooked in literature (Glaser

1910: 934). Despite the varied meanings of these

words, it raises the question of how to explain the

predominantly pejorative sense of this suffix. He

aligns with Nyrop's theory suggesting that the

pejorative meaning evolved from the augmentative

sense, positing that it initially emerged in words with

stems already carrying derogatory meanings, such as

"drunkard" and "sotard." The derogatory connotation

of these stems would have influenced the suffix in

these instances, extending to other derivatives in -ard,

as seen in "lisard," which could mean someone who

knows how to read, likes to read, but also conveys the

sense of being clever or adept in business. Glaser

draws comparisons between the pejorative nature of

the -ard suffix and other pejorative suffixes in French,

including -ald, -asse, -aille, -in, -on, and -âtre. The

suffix -ald, considered the closest counterpart to -ard,

has been previously discussed in the preceding

chapter. Similar to -ard, it initially emerges in

Germanic proper nouns before extending to common

nouns denoting people and animals, often carrying a

pejorative undertone, as seen in terms like clumsy,

clumsy, and toad (Kurt Glaser. 1910).

Concerning -asse, derived from the Latin

feminine suffix -acea/-acia, it primarily functions as a

collective and augmentative suffix, taking on a

pejorative sense in words such as bestiasse and

paperwork. The idea of greatness, when

misinterpreted, generates the concept of

disproportionate and consequently deformed

greatness. In certain feminine and pejorative words

ending in -asse, such as blondasse and fadasse, the

feminine form is also applied to masculine entities.

Another French suffix derived from Latin (-alia) is

-aille, conveying a collective meaning with an

inclination toward the pejorative, words like ferraille

(“waste iron”, TLFi) and valetaille (“[a] set of valets”,

TLFi), pointing out that the pejorative sense of these

terms has a relatively modern origin.

In the case of the suffixes -in and -on, both derived

from Latin, the pejorative connotation is rooted in the

diminutive sense, where "the idea of smallness

engenders contempt": gallant, joker, braggart,

grumpy, among others. The endings stemming from

the Latin suffix -attus/-ottus/-ittus follow a similar

pattern, conveying a diminutive meaning in words

like louvat and îlet, while adopting a pejorative sense

in bellot and vielot (Kurt Glaser. 1910).

Highlighting this aspect, let’s observe instances

where words ending in -ard have fallen out of use,

replaced by alternatives deemed more neutral, as seen

in the shift from Nicien and Niçois to Niçard. He

underscores the fluidity of language, noting that -ard

words are susceptible to nuanced shifts in meaning,

potentially diluting or entirely eclipsing the originally

pejorative sense of a word. Thus, he posits, "the

pejorative meaning is not always precisely defined

and specified, often making it challenging to

grasp"(Kurt Glaser. 1910).

In this research, following Glaser’s study we’d

like to categorize sixteen groups of pejorative words

ending in -ard, encompassing qualities interpreted

negatively (esperart, "one who hopes easily"),

tendencies towards chatter (languard, "one with a

sharp tongue"), lack of courage (coward, fugitive),

inclination to cry (cryer, whiner), loud and

inappropriate shouting (loud, shouty), individuals

with a gloomy and scolding demeanor (grondart,

hognart), drunkenness (drunk, thirsty), mockery

Sufﬁxal Derivation in French and Uzbek Languages

151

(joking), stupidity (sottard), deceit (cheat), physical

peculiarities or defects (nasty, one-eyed), morally

reprehensible individuals (bawdy, party animal),

professional nicknames (snitch, “[police] spy,”

cumulard, “one who combines several paid public

functions”), the executioner (hangman), laziness

(straggler, lazy person), and names with specific

pejorative meanings (Pierre Fessart, “fessu”).

Regarding the latter, Glaser notes that while the

pejorative sense is absent in Germanic proper nouns,

it emerges later in French proper nouns, often in the

form of a noun or adjective expressing a negative

quality (Kurt Glaser. 1910).

The challenges associated with affixation in the

formation of abbreviated lexical units pose a nuanced

dilemma for researchers. N.N. Lopatnikova

(Lopatnikova N.N. 1999) characterizes this

phenomenon as not affixation but rather an expansion

of existing indifferent words through the addition of

elements that create a familiar shortening effect.

Additional elements are appended to the end of a

word or root. The author highlights the efficacy of

general techniques, especially those involving the

replacement of the last truncated element of a lexical

unit (word or root) with another surrogate element.

These surrogate elements, like -anche, -ouse, -o, -

oche, - if, and others, are not considered suffixes as

they lack a general lexical taxonomic meaning and

can generate constructions related to different parts of

the word, a characteristic not typical of standard

suffixes. N. N. Lopatnikova identifies suffixes such

as -o, -ard, and -on as variations of false suffixes,

distinct in purpose—creating variations and

addressing word formation deficits.

The exploration of the relationship between

lexical origin and register in French takes a

distinctive perspective in comparison to other

linguists. E.M. Chekalina (Chekalina E.M. 1986)

delves into evaluative means within the system of

suffixes for French nouns and adjectives,

encompassing -ard, -eux, -esque, -asse, -aud, -ache,

-iste, -isme. Additionally, she includes diminutive

forms that generate -et (elet), -ot, -on.

In a study focused on emotional connections in the

French language, V. I. Nukalova (Nukalova V.I.

1974) places emphasis on suffixes of subjective

assessment, such as -ard, -aille, -ouille, - aud, and

others. These suffixes form an integral part of the

morphological structure of the language, serving

specific grammatical functions and imbuing words

with emotional connotations like disgust, rejection, or

irony.

Meanwhile, V.V. Meteleva (Meteleva V.V.

1977), in her examination of the semantics of reduced

lexical units in French, particularly in colloquial

speech, meticulously analyzes the semantics of

derivatives shaped by the -ard suffix. All the

aforementioned word-formation elements are

regarded as suffixes utilized for transforming the root

for word-formation purposes.

The utilization of suffixes and prefixes as

derivative tools for conveying an emotional-

evaluative stance towards the subject being described

alleviates the weightiness of the statement. This

concise approach allows for the precise depiction of a

person, object, or phenomenon in positive or negative

terms and seamlessly integrates into everyday

conversation, having originated from slang.

An illustrative example is the slang noun "salaud,"

formed by appending the slang suffix - aud to the

French adjective "sale," meaning "dirty" or "nasty."

This term was initially documented by the French

Academy in 1798 and, in its early usage, denoted "a

dishonest and vile person, a hypocrite, and a

scoundrel," serving as a harsh condemnation. It

gained rapid popularity and recognition, particularly

since 1946, thanks to its active inclusion in the works

of the French philosopher and journalist J.-P. Sartre.

In its current lexical status, "salaud" is classified as

"pop" in French dictionaries (ROBERT, Paul. 2007),

carrying a clearly negative concept synonymous with

"scoundrel" or "rascal."

The examination of texts reveals the frequency of

employing suffixes for expressing a relational attitude

towards the associated object. Emotional assessments

are commonly conveyed through diminutive suffixes,

while derogatory implications can be articulated

through various affixes. It's crucial to underscore that

lexical units with diminutive suffixes may, under

specific circumstances, acquire a negative or sarcastic

connotation.

When scrutinizing evaluative expressions— both

positive and negative—via suffixal derivation, a

discernible hierarchy emerges among suffixal parts of

speech. Phrases with substantives are deemed the

most productive, followed by adjectives, verb forms,

and personal pronouns. Demonstrative pronouns rank

lower in productivity. The analysis of language

documents indicates that the suffix -ard is the most

effective means for constructing words expressing

gratitude in French slang, with 64 words listed in the

argot dictionary. Notably, the suffix -ard

predominantly demonstrates a negative attitude

towards the subject of evaluation, as exemplified by

terms like "demerdard" (shifted) and "queutard"

(debaucher, party-goer), among others. Surnames

ending in -ard originate from two

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

152

distinct sources, either a Germanic name or

adescriptor where the suffix -ard imparts either an

elevating or derogatory connotation.

Germanic military names often incorporate the

word "hard," signifying strength or utility in ancient

Germanic language. This term is an integral part of

various Germanic names that evoke strength or

mythical creatures. For instance, Bernard means

"strong bear," and Richard conveys the meaning of

"mighty and strong." Some names survive solely in

surnames, such as Rocard ("strong crow"), Sicard

("strong victory"), and Guérard ("attentive and

strong")...

Conversely, in French, the suffix -ard generally

carries a derogatory meaning. Numerous examples,

including ringard, connard, fêtard, bâtard, bavard,

babillard, banlieusard, bambochard, flemmard, and

vantard, underscore this trend. For instance, Ronflard,

commonly found in Tours, could describe a loud

snorer or a card player, as ronfle, meaning "snore," is

associated with a card game where one player was

expected to feign sleep, hence snoring (Mireille

Huchon.2002)...

These names are not always straightforward to

interpret. Brouard, derived from the word "brouet,"

meaning clear soup, gains an added negative nuance

with the suffix -ard. It raises questions about whether

it refers to someone who consumed only soup and led

a meager life or perhaps an innkeeper who served

modestly at the table. The negative perception might

be linked to the place of origin rather than the

individual. For example, Souchard is derived from the

word "souche," meaning a cleared area with tree

stumps or a village by that name. The -ard suffix

suggests that the place was not particularly pleasant,

likely due to the unproductive nature of the land.

The suffix -ard serves various functions, including

creating agentive and instrumental forms, and

substituting for other suffixes. Agentives, derived

from action verbs with a subject, can be formed using

intransitive verbs (e.g., brailler, "Joseph est un

braillard"), pronominal verbs (e.g., se vanter, "Joseph

est un vantard"), or transitive verbs (e.g., cumuler,

"Joseph est un cumulard"). Comparing -ard with - eur,

it is noted that the former is "sometimes more

common when the verb itself has a pejorative

meaning" (1999: 61), as seen in pleurnicher →

"Joseph est un pleurnichard," not pleurnicheur.

Instrumental forms, considered remnants of an

older state, are exemplified by words like fouchard,

denoting a double-bladed sickle, and are occasionally

employed in professional slang, such as "Il est un

mouchard qui traîne de rue en rue." Additionally, the

suffix -ard can replace a neutral suffix, imparting a

pejorative sense to words like chauffeur → chauffard,

signifying one who drives

poorly. Moreover, it can be appended to basic

agent names, as seen in flicard → flic, intensifying the

pejorative meaning.

When analyzing the structure of non-derivative

and derived words in French and Uzbek, a significant

contrast becomes apparent. In the Uzbek language, a

non-derivative word stands alone, operating

independently as a distinct word with a specific

lexical meaning. Any substantial word lacking an

affix is a complete and self- contained lexical unit.

Examples include "temir" for "iron," "dala" for

"field," "non" for "bread," and "kitob" for "book."

(Asadov, T. 2022)

Words borrowed from French into Uzbek, such as

"avance" becoming "avans," "assamblée" becoming

"assambleya," and "bagage" turning into "bagaj,"

have become indivisible words. Consequently, the

concept of a "word stem" present in the French

language does not align with the specific structure of

Uzbek words. In Uzbek, all morphemes are

sequentially attached to a non- derivative word. For

instance, in the example "Studentlaringizdanginami?"

meaning "Is it only from your students?":

"lar" is a plural suffix.

"ingiz" is a suffix indicating affiliation in the 2nd

person, plural.

"dan" is a suffix indicating the ablative case.

"gina" is a suffix of restriction, implying "only"

or "just."

"mi" is an interrogative particle. (Hozhiev A.

2022)

This structure makes it challenging to pinpoint the

stem and inflectional morpheme in examples like

"students," where "student" is the root or non-

derivative stem, and "-ov" is the ending indicating the

plural genitive case. Acknowledging this distinct

feature of Uzbek words, it is recommended to use the

term "non-derivative word" (instead of "root" or

"non-derivative base") if it lacks formative

morphemes (Kononov A.N. 1960).

In the Uzbek language, case and other affixes can

be easily separated, whereas in French, this is

impossible. For instance, "institutlarga" breaks down

as follows: "lar" indicates plurality, and "ga" serves

as the affix for the dative case. In French, the dative

case is expressed through prepositions, as seen in

"aux instituts." In Uzbek, any fully formed word

without case or other suffixes constitutes a complete

lexical unit, involving the concepts of root, prefix,

and suffix.

The French language employs a diverse range of

methods and tools for word formation, with suffixes

Sufﬁxal Derivation in French and Uzbek Languages

153

playing a crucial role in the creation of new words.

Suffixation carries the primary lexical meaning of a

word, whether it consists of a single root (livre), a root

and a prefix (pré-achat), or a combination of root,

prefix, and suffix (in- accept-a-tion).

In contrast, the Uzbek language lacks the concept

of a "root" in the same sense as in French (Jurayeva

Shalola Xusanboyeva,). In Uzbek, any non-derivative

word represents a formalized lexical unit with a

specific meaning. The predominant method of word

formation involves suffixation, where word-forming

affixes are added to a non-derivative word. For

instance, in the word "yozuvchi," "yoz" serves as a

non-derivative word,

"-uv-" functions as an affix forming a new word,

and "-chi" is a suffix indicating a person.

In French, the root and word-forming morphemes

maintain a close relationship, a contrast observed in

the Uzbek language. This distinction poses a

challenge for Uzbek students, particularly when

attempting to identify the root of most French words,

given their unfamiliarity with the Latin origin of

words. To overcome these challenges, it is

recommended to provide students with translations of

words into Uzbek

Table 1: For convenience, the main differences are reflected in the table.

A suffix is a sequence of letters added to the end of a word,

which is referred to as the radical or root word. This addition

results in a new word within the same word family, known as a

derived word. The stem of the word encapsulates the primary

idea, while the suffix alters the meaning of the radical.

Suffixes play a role in modifying the grammatical nature of the

original word, enabling the transformation of an adjective into

a noun, an adverb, and vice versa.

Ex: grand (qualifying adjective) grand-eur (common noun)

rand-ir (verb) Here, we added -eur and -ir to find other words

of a different nature.

The word formation system is very complex (many rules and

exceptions to them, many prefixes and suffixes with very

different meanings). A large number of words can be formed

from one root morpheme (sometimes up to 150-200 words). Set

of words that have the same root, the same radical. Ex : Forêt,

forest-ier, dé-forest-a-tion, forest-erie.

The radical does not always have exactly the same form from

one word to another in the same family. Ex: Le radical « cheval

» a donné les mots « chevalerie », « chevalier », mais aussi «

chevaucher».

Prefixes, suffixes and endings in the French language, as a rule,

have multiple meanings. The affixal derivation can be,

depending on the nature of the affix added to the base (one or

more), prefixal, suffixal or parasynthetic. Prefixal and suffixal

derivations consist of adding a prefix and a suffix to a base

respectively. Thus, re-peindre is a derivative by prefixation of

the verb peindre and pauvre-té is a derivative by suffixation of

the adjective pauvre.

The parasynthetic formation results from a simultaneous

addition to a base, a prefix and a suffix. For example, the word

neckline is formed both by prefixation and by suffixation: we

add to the base constituted by the noun col, the prefix en- and

the suffix –ure. Likewise, indécorable is formed by the addition

of the prefix in- and the suffix –able.

speak

production

when

lexical

unit produces

derivatives. Lexical units are more or less productive

depending on the number of derivatives they produce. Chrome,

for example, is very productive since it gives rise to a large

number of derivatives: chromer, chromage, chromé(e),

chromatage, chromate, chromeur, chromeux, chromifère,

chromi

ue, chromisation.

New words are formed from root words or derived stem

mainly by adding word-forming (stem-forming) suffixes t

them. For example: ish - work, business, ish-chi - worke

employee, ish-siz - unemployed, ish- siz-lik

unemployment, ish-chan - businesslike, ish-la

- work (the basis of the verb ishlamoq - work) etc. Prefix

word formation is very rare, for example: to’g’ri - correc

noto’g’ri - incorrect.

The word formation system is much simpler than in th

French language (there are many productive word-formin

suffixes, most of them are unambiguous).

One root word usually produces 5-10 (sometimes 10-20

words of the same root. To denote various actions, stabl

phrases (so-called “complex verbs”) are often used, fo

example: olib kelmoq -

ring, (lit. “taking to come”) oli

ketmoq - take away, carry away (lit., “taking to leave”

)

yaxshi ko’rmoq .—to love (lit., “to see well”), tamo

qilmoq—to finish (lit., “to do the end”), etc.

In the Uzbek language, the method of compounding word

in word formation is used relatively rarely.

Suffixes in the Uzbek language are in most case

unambiguous. So, for example, the suffix -dan expresse

only the meaning of the original case of names, the suffix

ning - only the meaning of the genitive case of names, th

suffix -lar - only the meaning of the plural, the suffix -ni

only the meaning of the accusative case of names, etc.

There are both polysemantic and homonymous suffixes (fo

example: -cha, -siz, -(i)ng, etc.), but there are very few o

them.

The rules and paradigms for declension of names an

conjugation of verbs are very simple and uniform. There ar

almost no exceptions to these rules. So, for example, a

nouns, substantivized adjectives, participles, pronomin

adjectives, ordinal numbers and, in general, a

substantivized parts of speech, as well as noun pronoun

(for example, personal pronouns), cardinal numbers ar

declined according to the same rule, and to them to expres

the meanings of number, case, belonging, etc. the sam

suffixes (endings) are added.

One suffix (ending) usually expresses only on

grammatical meaning. Therefore, in order to express

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

154

Certain lexical units do not produce any morphological

derivative, they are said to be blocked, this is the case of the

nouns keyboard and mouse, for example.

several grammatical meanings at the same time, several

suffixes (endings) must be added to the base of the word.

For example: for your children - bola+lar+ing-iz+ga

[-lar- — plural, -ing- - 2 p. (owner), -iz- —:pl. , (owner), -

ga – dative case].

3 CONCLUSION

Our task involved constructing a model that depicts

semantic derivation, as outlined in the Meaning-Text

theory, among morphological derivatives within

computer vocabulary terms. To achieve this, we

gathered terms from a general public computing

corpus using a concordancer. We applied specific

criteria to identify terms unique to the field and to

distinguish between various meanings of polysemous

terms. Our objective was to illustrate semantic

derivation links among morphological derivatives,

and we encoded these links using lexical functions

that model semantic derivation.

However, certain semantic relationships between

two terms were not prevalent enough in the language

to align with standard lexical functions.

Consequently, we devised non-standard lexical

functions. Only terms genuinely lexicalized in the

spoken language were included, and criteria were

employed to determine the lexicalization status of a

term.

We propose the utilization of lexical functions in

terminography from this standpoint, as they

comprehensively and systematically elucidate the

semantic relationships among diverse morphological

derivatives of terms. The preliminary effort required

to disambiguate different meanings of terms proves

advantageous, compelling terminographers to adopt a

rigorous approach that inherently enhances the

quality of definitions. We believe that conducting a

reflection based on a broader spectrum of terms could

be beneficial, leading to the identification of

additional derivatives not found in the corpus. This

study could encompass complex terms such as

"power on" or "write protection," which were

excluded in our initial research. Expanding the scope

of the work would facilitate a more profound

examination of how to structure the model,

specifically regarding the selection of terms to serve

as inputs.

Moreover, we have demonstrated the validity

of this model in terminology and posit its potential

adaptability to other specialized languages with their

unique linguistic characteristics.

These could serve as a robust tool for comparing

linguistic phenomena in general language with those

in specialized languages. Indeed, they effectively

bring attention to facts such as derivation and

collocations in a formal and easily manipulable

manner.

REFERENCES

Asadov, T. (2022). On the study and development of word

formation in the Uzbek language. CENTER FOR

Scientific Publications (buxdu.Uz), 18(18).

Azizov A.A. Comparative grammar of Russian and Uzbek

languages. Tashkent, 1990.

Bujanova L. Ju. Terminologicheskaja derivacija v jazyke

nauki: kognitivnost', semiotichnost', funkcional'nost'

(Terminological Derivation in the Language of Science:

Cognition, Semiotics, Functionality), Moscow: Flinta,

2016, 390 p.

Chekalina E.M. On the problem of the formation of the

evaluative meaning of the affix // Bulletin of the

Leningrad University. - Ser. 2. – History, linguistics,

literary criticism. – L., 1986. – Issue. 4. – pp. 73-78.

Dehqonov Islom Teshaevich. (2021) L'interculturel en

francais langue etrengere. International scientific and

practical conference. 3 (3) 135-137.

Dubois, J., F. Dubois-Charlier: La dérivation suffixale en

français – Paris, Nathan, 1999

Hozhiev A. Uzbek tili suz jasalishi (Word Production in the

Uzbek Language), Tashkent: Uqituvchi, 2007, 168 p.

Jurayeva Shalola Xusanboyeva, “On the expression of

words from french lanuage to uzbek language”.

American journal of social and humanitarian research

vol 2 no 9,119,120,121

Kononov A.N. "Grammar of the modern Uzbek literary

language" 1960.

Kurt Glaser. «Le sens péjoratif du suffixe -ard en français»,

Romanische Forschungen –T. 27, 1910.,p. 932-983.

Lopatnikova N.N. Colloquially reduced pseudo-word-

formation variants of stylistically neutral words in

modern French// Unity of systemic and functional

analysis of linguistic units. Vol. III. – Belgorod, 1999.

– P. 240-245.

Madvaliev A. Uzbek tilining izohli lugati (1-5 zhildlar)

(Annotated Dictionary of the Uzbek Language),

Volumes 1-5, Tashkent: Davlat ilmii nashrieti, 2020.

Mireille Huchon. Histoire de la langue française, –

Paris: LGF, 2002

Sufﬁxal Derivation in French and Uzbek Languages

155

Myakshin, K.A. Diversity of approaches to defining the

concept of “term” / K.A. Myakshin // Almanac of

modern science and education. – Tambov, 2009. –

p.109–111.

N. A. Structural linguistics: origins and directions. -

Moscow, 2006.

Reshetova, L. Rod vazhins category sining lexicon-

grammar hususiyatlari / L. Reshetova, K. Umurov //

Ozbek tili va adabiyoti. 1965. No. 6. pp. 31–35.

Saidov, Zh. R. On the word formation of adjectives in the

modern Uzbek language / Zh. R. Saidov. — Text:

immediate // Young scientist. — 2015. — No. 8 (88).

— P. 1160-1163.

Yusupov U.K. Theoretical foundations of comparative

linguistics. – Tashkent: Fan. 2007. – 125 p.

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

156