Investigating Productive Word Formation Patterns in Verbs Across

Russian and Uzbek Languages

I. T. Babakulov

and K. N. Kadirov

Samarkand State University, Samarkand, Uzbekistan

Navoi Innovations University, Navoi, Uzbekistan

Keywords: System, Word-Formation Category, Russian Language, Uzbek Language, Causation, Derivation, Suffixation,

Suffixal-Postfixal Method.

Abstract: The article characterises the general system of word-formation categories of verbs of Russian and Uzbek

languages. The analysis of the most productive word-forming categories included in it is given, with the verbs

of motion and movement, movement effectiveness, movement restriction, intensity and causation serving as

their derivational bases. It is substantiated that verb word-formation in Russian is more agglutinative, despite

the presence of a number of morphological transformations at suffixation and suffixal- postfixal method. The

groups predetermining the allocated semantic seme have been established. The verbs of causation in the

Uzbek language are considered and on the basis of examples of their word-formation derivation the meanings

of causation are conveyed.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the study of Russian word-formation, it is observed

that verbal word-formation is more agglutinative

compared to nominal word-formation. This is evident

despite the presence of various morphonological

transformations that occur during suffixation and the

suffixal-postfixal method. Notably, specific verb

formants such as prefixes and postfixes are

characterized by a lack of accompanying

morphonological transformations. This distinction

highlights the unique structural aspects of Russian

verbs in their formation and modification processes.

The analysis of the links between grammatical

categories, such as kind (aspect) and pledge (voice),

and the lexico-grammatical categories of verbs is

particularly significant. These connections reveal

intricate interactions between the morphological tier,

encompassing categories like kind and pledge, and

lexical elements, which include different ways of

verbal action. Furthermore, understanding these

relationships provides deeper insights into the nature

of verb word-formation categories in the Russian

language, emphasizing the complexity and richness

of its verbal system.

In-depth study of these interactions offers a

comprehensive perspective on how morphological,

lexical, and word-formation elements integrate within

the Russian language. It is crucial to identify the

interplay between these tiers to fully grasp the

mechanisms underlying verbal word-formation. This

holistic approach not only sheds light on the structural

intricacies of Russian verbs but also enhances our

understanding of their functional and semantic roles

within the language.

2 ANALYSIS

The vast zone of content isomorphism of the two

languages being compared - Uzbek and Russian - is

manifested in the generalisation and universality of

the word-formation meaning (WN), in its ability to

convey the general concepts of human thinking. In

Russian, the general system of the most productive

word-forming categories (WFC) of the verb includes

the following: SC "spatial modification of action" (fly

in, fly up, fly out, fly in, fly in,

fly around, fly away, fly over, fly under, fly in, fly

over, fly over, fly down, fly away, etc.). In this

category, the verbs of motion and movement serve as

the producing base. Almost all productive verb

prefixes are used as formant means in lexical

realisations of this category.

1108

Babakulov, I. and Kadirov, K.

Investigating Productive Word Formation Patterns in Verbs Across Russian and Uzbek Languages.

DOI: 10.5220/0012954000003882

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 1108-1111

ISBN: 978-989-758-723-8

SC "effectiveness of action" (to grow up, to

mature, to sleep out, to run out, to finish reading, to

finish reading, to wake up, to wait for, to salt, to talk

out, etc.).

SC "temporally limited action" (to flirt, to laugh,

to shriek, to rejoice, to talk, to sit, etc.).

SC "multiplicity of action" (scare, scold, shug,

jump, dare; hobble, shiban, chuban, rub, quilt, tell,

cut, push; try, etc.).

SC "intensity of action" (to amuse, to press on, to

lay on, to push on, to read, to forget; to smoke, to read,

to dance, to brood, to cheer up, etc.).

SC "behaviour, occupation" (naive, sassy,

monkeying around, frank, pajasnicki, etc.).

SC "becoming a sign" (to orphan, to grow old, to

grow rusty, to grow glassy, to grow dilapidated, to

grow strong, to grow wild, to grow expensive; to

grow deaf, to grow blind, to grow dry, etc.).

SC "manifestation of a feature" (whiteness,

blackness, redness, etc.); SC "causation of action"

(salt, pepper, sugar, mothball, wax, ochre,

powder, etc.).

SC "turning the action towards the subject" (to

make up, to comb, to whiten, to blush, to defend, to

anger, to restrain, etc.).

SC "reciprocity" ("comitativity") of action (to

scold, to shoot, to get acquainted, to shake hands, etc).

It is shown that only two SCs coincide in the verb

subsystems of the Russian and Uzbek languages:

"becoming a feature" (derevenet, firm, shallow

- kizarmok, kuyuklamok) and "giving a feature

(causation)" (yellow, dirty, reveal, exhaust, orphan -

yangilamok, yakhishlamok). At the same time,

morphological transformations of derivatives in

Uzbek can be no less significant than in Russian: cf.

sariq - sargaimok. It is significant that in Russian the

technique of attaching verbal suffixes to the bases is

close to agglutinative: dirty-i-t, bel-i-t. Verbal

suffixes are more easily distinguished than most

nominal suffixes, however, we cannot speak of the

full agglutinativity of such suffixes, since they

express not only derivational but also species

meaning.

In Russian, the SC "becoming of a feature" is an

integral, compact, and largely agglutinative category,

while the SC "causation" is a more complicated

complex phenomenon. As A. A. Azizov notes, "in

Russian there are only vestigial phenomena of

causative (to drink - to drink, to fester - to fester), so

this collateral meaning is dead in Russian and is not

expressed by grammatical means" [2. P. 164]. [2. С.

164]. In this case, indeed, we can see that there is no

such a regular grammatical category in Russian as the

prepositional voice in Uzbek. Meanwhile, one can by

no means agree that the meaning of causation is a relic

phenomenon.

From the author's point of view, the productivity

of the verb SC "causation of a feature", which is

paradigmatically related to SC "becoming of a

feature" and at the same time opposed to it, in Russian

partially compensates for the weak "drawing" of the

grammatical category of pledge.

The correlation of verb grammatical categories

(GC) proper (kind, pledge, inflection, tense, person)

is complex and is determined by their contribution to

the category of meanings (CM) of proceduralism, the

general meaning of all words belonging to the class

of verbs. According to A. M. Peshkovsky, the kind of

a verb generalises the time of a process or its

distribution in time. In contrast to the category of verb

tense, species is not related to the deictic temporal

(time) localisation of an action, but to its internal

"temporal structure", to the way it is interpreted by

the speaker. In different languages, the category of

kind differs both in the variety of its forms of

expression (synthetic or analytic) and in its content.

The numerous oppositions of reaching / not

reaching the inner limit of the state and the achieved

state, with the notions of repetition, ordinariness, etc.,

noted in the languages of the world, are characteristic

as a kind, acquiring the status of GC in the language.

As I. I. Meshchaninov notes, otherwise it will act as a

semantic (conceptual) category, i.e., as an opposition

of "aspectual classes" (dynamic/static, limit/non-limit

verbs) and their subclasses, the so-called modes of

action within the functional-semantic field of

aspectuality. This means a set of grammatical, word-

formation, lexical and many other means serving to

convey their meanings.

It is not unknown that the categories of kind and

pledge in Russian, relative to the categories of

inclination, time, and person, are word-forming

categories that contribute to the replenishment of the

verb lexicon. Their realisation ensures word-

formation derivation rather than morphological

derivation. Due to this, the form and pledge status of

grammatical categories do not disappear, but their

specificity as categories of classifying character is

emphasised. For example, A. N. Tikhonov, one of the

most convinced supporters of representing the

members of the species pair as forms of one verb and

the presence of pure species prefixes in the Russian

language, held the opposite point of view. In his

Dictionary of the Russian Language, each prefixal

verb takes the place of a full-fledged member of

word-formation chains and paradigms.

These verbs in comparison with the verbs of

becoming in Uzbek are described by I. R. Hakimova,

Investigating Productive Word Formation Patterns in Verbs Across Russian and Uzbek Languages

1109

who identified the essential features of isomorphism

of the organisation of verbs of this mode of action in

the two different languages under consideration. In

turn, this substantiates the correctness of E. S.

Kubryakova's statement about the proximity of word-

formation meanings to universal meanings.

In particular, according to I. R. Hakimova, the

specificity of verbs of becoming is determined, first

of all, by the fact that in most cases they fulfil the role

of derivative adjectives verbs, which are

characterised by the inheritance of semantic features

of their derivatives. Meanwhile, from our point of

view, this interpretation requires clarification. It is

well known that verbs of becoming, like all

transpositional classes of derivatives, do not so much

inherit as transform the semantics of the deriving

adjectives (less often nouns) by eliminating the

grammatical categories of genus, case, fullness-

shortness, and by introducing the derived word fully

into the sphere of verb categories. Meanwhile, the

generalised lexical semantics of derivational

adjectives will undoubtedly be reflected in the

semantics of derivational verbs and their functioning.

As we can see, verbs of becoming convey a

dialectical unity of motivational semantics, word-

formation meaning and grammatical categories of the

"resultant" verb grammatical class, the functioning of

which is restricted by the semantics of the producing

class. For example, I. S. Ulukhanov classifies them as

a mutational semantic type of word formation.

In Russian, some causative verbs are

paradigmatically connected with verbs of becoming

as regular correlates of verbal word-formation

paradigms (SP), cf.: to whiten - to whiten, to blacken

- to blacken, to blue - to blue, to dirty, to dirty, to

young - to young, to old - to old, etc.

According to I. S. Ulukhanov, private realisations

of the selected semantic seme are the following

groups:

verbs with the meaning "to endow with something

(general meaning)":

finance, subsidise, etc.

verbs with the meaning of "to cover an object with

something": vaxit, ochre, powder, sandalise,

antimony, etc.

verbs with the meaning "to impregnate an object

with something": to

spirit, to grease, to alum, etc.

verbs with the meaning "to saturate an object with

something":

ammonise, iodise, nitrogenise, etc.

verbs with the meaning "to sprinkle something on

or put something in an object": salt, pepper, sugar, etc.

verbs with the meaning "to equip an object with

something": to lock, to telephonise, to cable, etc.

In our opinion, all the differences in the above

groups and shades of verb meanings reflect the

specificity of their lexical meanings or even those

actions, chemical reactions, etc. (i.e., extra-linguistic

factors, etc.) that are reflected in the semantics of

individual verbs. (i.e., extra-linguistic factors) that are

reflected in the semantics of individual verbs.

These distinctions have nothing to do with

generalised word-formation semantics. Even from the

lexicological point of view, the groups singled out by

S. Ulukhanov are very narrow: the distinction

between the definitions "to impregnate an object with

something" and "to saturate an object with

something" is not quite clear; it seems reasonable to

unite the 3-, 4- and 5-th groups into one.

Only the formulation of Group 1, which refers to

verbs of the most abstract semantics "to endow with

something", is close to the formulation of word-

formation meaning (WF) as a categorical meaning.

From our point of view, it represents a working

definition of one of the word-formative meanings of

"causation".

The verbs characterised in the aspect of causative

semantics, i.e., SC "causation", are distinguished by

the fact that they acquire this meaning because of

word-formation derivation.

We assume that a derivational verb formed in one

act of derivation may combine two word-formative

meanings, just as a single word-form of fusional

Russian combines two or more grammatical

meanings. This situation arises in prefixal-suffixal

word-formation, the use of confixes in derivational

processes, in which one of the components of the

formant complex expresses the resultative semantics

of prefixes, and the other - the more abstract suffixal

semantics.

In Uzbek, the verbs of causation are:

Substantive: ish - ishlamok, arra - arralamok, suz

- suzlamok, auz - auzlamok, pichok - pichoklamok,

tish - tishlamok, moi - moilamok;

otadjective: tayyor - tayelamok, ok - oklamok,

kora - koraymok, yangi

yangilamok.

Uzbek also has verbs of causation formed from

verbs, for example:

bukmok - buklamok, gazhimok - gazhilamok.

3 CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, the subtle shades in the semantics of

lexical realisations of the above word-forming types

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

1110

(WF) are explained rather by the specific semantics

of the derivatives. Undoubtedly, the semantics of

prefixes modifies the semantics of this subtype of SC

"causation", however, already in relation to SC

"efficiency". Numerous verb SCs in Russian are

semantically connected, first of all, with the category

of form and the category of pledge, and formally -

with prefixal, prefixal-suffixal and postfixal modes of

expression (e.g., to come, to fly in, to divorce, to run

away, to beat, to go bankrupt). Therefore, they do not

find correspondence in Uzbek.

REFERENCES

Abdullaeva, Sh. D. (2011). Word-forming categories as a

factor of systematicity of verb lexicon in the modern

Russian language (Candidate of Philological Sciences

dissertation). Tashkent.

Azizov, A. A. (1983). Comparative morphology of Russian

and Uzbek languages. Tashkent: Ukituvchi.

Vinogradov, V. V. (1978). History of Russian linguistic

doctrines. Moscow: Higher School.

Kubryakova, E. S. (1988). The role of word formation in

the formation of the linguistic picture of the world. In

The role of the human factor in language. Language and

the picture of the world (pp. 141-172). Moscow: Nauka.

Nurmukhamedova, D. F. (1997). Borrowed word-forming

elements in the modern Uzbek language. In Actual

problems of Russian word-formation. Materials of the

VII Republican Conference. Samarkand: SamSU.

Tikhonov, A. N. (1985). Word-formation dictionary of the

Russian language (Vols. 1-2). Moscow: Russian

language.

Ulukhanov, I. S. (1999). Units of the word-formation

system of the Russian language and their lexical

realisation. Moscow: RAN.

Investigating Productive Word Formation Patterns in Verbs Across Russian and Uzbek Languages

1111