Verb groups in Turkic languages are distinguished by the richness and complexity of their grammatical structure and the wide range of meaning. Scholars note that verbs that reveal the main signs and unique aspects of the grammatical structure of the language can be the object of lexicology and lexicography at the same time as the grammatical section.

In this respect, the works of O. Bötling, S.V. Yastremskyi, V.W. Radlov, I.A. Batmanov, A.N. Kononov, Y.R. Tenishev, A.A. Yuldashev, Y.V. Sevortyan, V.A. Isengaliyeva, etc. were specially studied by prominent Turkologists. These linguists address various problems of the verb: they determine its morphological structure, reveal its lexical and grammatical nature, analyze numerous problems regarding the grammatical categories of the verb.

Some specific works have been done on the study of verb semantics in Turkic languages. V.F. Veshilova ” Глаголы движения в турецком языке”, E.R. Tenishev ” Глаголы движения в тюркских языках”, E.A. Ubryatova ” Глаголы речи в якутском языке” (manuscript), A.A. Yuldashev ” Глаголы чувственного восприятия”, N.Z. Gadziyeva, A.A. Koklyanova ” Глаголы речи в тюркских языках” (manuscript) An example of this is his works such as Turkic languages. These works performed by the mentioned authors are of great importance in the study of the problem of semantics in Turkic languages. It can be noted that in recent times, topics related to this problem are studied in different aspects. For example, N.K. Dmitriev’s ” Лексико-семантическое сочетаемость глаголов движения”, B.M. Ibrahimova’s “К синтагматической характеристике глаголов движения в современном русском языке”, T.A. Kildibekova’s “Глаголы действия и их роль в организации семантической структуры высказывания”, A.M. Namudilina’s “Синтаксическая сочетаемость глаголов движения” works like this show that this topic is widely studied in Turkic languages and that it is an interesting issue that attracts the attention of linguists. In addition to the mentioned cases, it can also be assumed that individual verb meanings are developed in the comparative plan in Turkish languages.

Among them, G. Kuliyev’s article “Семантическая классификация глаголов азербайджанского и туркменского языков” is worth mentioning. In this work, the author notes the semantic groups of the verbs of these two related languages, which belong to the southeastern group of Turkic languages.

Information about the verb group of the Turkmen language, its grammatical structure, and the nature of meaning can be found in the works of A.P. Poseluyevsky, H. Bailyev, B. Charyarov, M. Khudgulyev, B. Khojaev, A. Borjakov, R. Berdiyev, S. Arnazarov. However, just like in other Turkic languages, in Turkmen language there are many issues of verbs that need to be studied. Such problems are constantly faced with the development and improvement of Turkmen language education. For example, in recent decades in the science of Turkology, more attention has been paid to the study of verbs from a semantic point of view. with its objective complexity.

In modern Turkmen language linguistics, although the semantic groups of verbs are not fully studied grammatically, some work has been done to study them by dividing them into semantic groups from the lexicographic point of view. The main place in this list belongs to the work “Semantics of the Turkmen verb” by K.B. Gayibova. The main feature of this work, which the author performed by dividing the verbs of the Turkmen language into semantic groups, is that it was performed from the point of view of lexicography. The main purpose of the results of this work is to use them in the compilation of dictionaries. One of the important aspects of the discussed work is that it divides the verbs in the modern Turkmen language into groups according to their semantic characteristics for the first time, and determines what principles lie behind such a division.

The analyzes carried out and carried out on each of the groups divided by the semantic features of verbs by the author, first of all, are of great importance in improving the study of the grammatical structure of the Turkmen language.

K.B.Gaybova correctly writes that verbs in general linguistics are divided into several general semantic groups and divides them into groups representing 1) physical labour, 2) intellectual work of a person, 3) welfare. Based on this, he divides the verbs of the Turkmen language into three main groups. Based on the above, it is possible to divide the meaning of verbs in the Turkmen language into more specific meaning groups:

1) Action verbs.

2) emotional verbs.

(a) Viewing verbs.

(b) auditory verbs.

3) thought verbs.

4) business verbs, etc.

In general, different languages have different principles behind the semantic classification of verbs. For example, in the work of V. P. Vasilev ” Семантика русского глагола” it is noted that the division of verbs into semantic groups is mainly based on three principles – traditional (traditional, thematic and denotative) principles. However, in the work of K. B. Gaibova called ” Семантика туркменского глагола” it is noted that the thematic principle is chosen among these principles, and that this principle is convenient for dividing verbs into semantic groups and revealing their semantic features. The main goal of the work being carried out is to study the thinking operations, which are one of the meaning groups divided on the basis of this chosen principle, from the lexical-semantic, grammatical point of view.

As one of the analyzes conducted on separate semantic groups of verbs in the Turkmen language, it is possible to mention the monographic work of S. Ärnazarov entitled ” Türkmen dilinde sözleýiş işlikleri”. Here, speech verbs of the Turkmen language are analyzed independently for the first time. This semantic group, chosen by the linguist S. Arnazarov as the object of analysis, is distinguished by its breadth and complexity in the modern Turkmen language. He analyzes this semantic group of verbs, first from a monographic, then from a lexical-grammatical point of view. The work analyzes only the morphological structure of speech acts, which may or may not coincide with other semantic groups. By following their morphological structure, it is possible to ensure the formation of the studied meaning feature.

In the recent scientific literature, a lot is said about the systematicity of the language, in particular, about the systematicity of the lexical composition of the language. There have been many arguments for and against this idea. By measuring the expressed opinions and attitudes, the scientists came to the only correct conclusion. In our opinion, the lexical structure of any language is a special type of structure that does not obey a specific logical scheme, because the structure of the lexical structure of traditional languages is characterized by its openness, certain asymmetry, non-regular semantic opposition, non-rigid hierarchy, and resistance of structural connections. etc. significantly different.

Among these signs characteristic of the language, it shows that the hierarchical character emerges uniquely in terms of verb meanings. For example, this can be seen more clearly in the example of thought processes of the Turkmen language. This is because human activities that represent the thought process consist of several periods. In the process of thinking, a person first experiences the initial basis of this action: that is, when he first thinks about something, he first perceives it through the organ of thought, the first state (sign) of thought appears in his mind. A person first receives the concept of any thing with his mind (brain). As Z.M.Vasilev rightly pointed out, the activities representing the result of the thinking process form a very complex paradigm. They are combined into a paradigm based on the hierarchical connection of words with mutual (dependent) main meaning: hasaplamak – çaklamak – ynanmak, düşünmek – ýalňyşmak.

Assumptions about this concept form calculations. Only then does he begin to understand and believe in it. The second phase of this thinking is a continuation of the initial period. Once such a concept is formed in a person’s mind, he is aware of the consequences of his thinking about it. It is a continuation of the hierarchical movement and culminates in a person reaching a certain conclusion on this movement. After that, another new period of thinking begins. It is also completed by the fact that the thought process remains in the mind of a person.

As it is known from the result of the mental activity of the person, which is connected with the thought process itself and its result, the actions representing this action form a sequence of development in the Turkmen language. For example:

I Akmak aranda aňar (Nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 59)

II Keýwany, sen hiç zada düşüneňok (Ýigrimi üç Ependi, p. 59).

III Duýdurmasaň duýmaz, düýşüňde goýmaz (Nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 53)

IV Okasaň, ylym alarsyň, hemme zady bilersiň (Nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 113).

Akyl et, pikir et, pisindiňe syganna ynan, sygmadygna ynanma (Nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 72).

Akylly öwrener, akmak öwreder (Nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 60)

III Duşman seni tanamanka, sen duşmany tana. (nakyllar we atalar sözi, p. 104).

Adam öýlenende öýüň agdar-düňder bolýandagy hemmeler aýan zat, şonuň üçin hem öňünden çäre görýärin (23 Ependi, p. 19).

IV Hoja:”Ä-hä,görýän weli, ojagam aýalymdan gorkýan eken”diýen netijä gelipdir (23 Ependi, p. 40).

Aýaly şondan soň ondan her gün pul getirmegi talap etmändir,sebäbi Allanyň Nasreddini betbagt etmejegine göz ýetiripdir (23 Ependi,204s).

Hierarchical order of thought verbs used in Turkmen language is not complete in all cases. According to the implementation of the action, it may or may not show a hierarchical order (continuity). Therefore, many linguists who have studied this issue divide thinking verbs into: 1) verbs that express the process of thinking and those that express the result of an act of thinking.

The emergence of the possibility of following such a hierarchical connection between the semantic groups representing the meaning of verbs not only shows the diversity and breadth of the meaning of verbs in the Turkmen language, but also reveals that this process is very continuous and regular. In the works of scientists who have studied this problem, thinking functions are not the same as in the higher development stage. If, from the point of view of the study of this problem, we take linguists in general, not according to the division of Western languages or Turkologists, then L.M. Vasilev thought functions (1 thinking. knowledge and memory) If he divides the activities, K.B. Gayipova gives them within the framework of general thinking activities.

In our opinion, the separation of verbs in the Turkmen language takes place conditionally. Because there are verbs in the language that can refer to a specific verb meaning. For example, some cognitive functions can also be related to emotions. It can be considered that thinking here is mainly related to the emotional state of the person, resulting from it.

It is possible to refer to S. Arnazarov’s opinion here: “Speech acts are closely related to thought acts (verba sentient)”, that is, through such acts, the subject expresses his opinion about his object or his attitudes related to it. In this work of the author, lexical meanings of speech acts are given. It can be seen that the separated meaning groups related to consultation, argument, dispute, slander, gossip, deceit, oath, promise, which are found among them, are divided in direct connection with the work of human thinking.

Attribute sind eine wichtige Wortart, die Substantive näher beschreiben und spezifizieren. Ihre Analyse ist für das Verständnis deutscher Satzstrukturen und die grammatische Kompetenz von großer Bedeutung. Dieser Artikel widmet sich einer kontrastiven Analyse der Attribute in der deutschen Sprache. Ziel ist es, die spezifischen morphologischen, syntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften deutscher Attribute im Vergleich zu anderen Sprachen aufzuzeigen.

Morphologie der Attribute

Die deutsche Morphologie bietet verschiedene Möglichkeiten zur Bildung von Attributen. Dazu gehören:

Flexion: Attribute werden dekliniert, um mit dem Bezugsnomen in Kasus, Numerus und Genus übereinstimmen.

Derivation: Durch Präfixe, Suffixe oder Komposita können neue Attribute abgeleitet werden (z.B. schön -> hässlich, Arbeitszimmer).

Umlaut: Bei bestimmten Adjektiven tritt bei der Steigerung Umlaut ein (z.B. groß -> größer).

Im kontrastiven Vergleich ist es interessant zu untersuchen, ob andere Sprachen ähnliche morphologische Mechanismen für die Attributbildung aufweisen. Fehlt in einer Sprache die Flexion der Attribute, so kann dies Auswirkungen auf die Satzstruktur und die grammatische Kohärenz haben.

Syntax der Attribute

Die syntaktische Position der Attribute im Deutschen ist relativ frei. Sie können vor oder nach dem Bezugsnomen stehen (z.B. das schöne Haus / das Haus ist schön). Im kontrastiven Vergleich ist es wichtig zu fragen, ob andere Sprachen strengere Regeln für die Positionierung von Attributen haben.  Spielt die Wortfolge der Attribute im Deutschen womöglich eine Rolle für die semantische Interpretation des Satzes?

Semantik der Attribute

Attribute haben die Funktion, das Bezugsnomen inhaltlich näher zu charakterisieren. Dabei können sie verschiedene semantische Informationen ausdrücken, wie etwa:

Farbe (rot, blau)

Größe (groß, klein)

Material (golden, hölzern)

Bewertung (schön, hässlich)

Zugehörigkeit (national, privat)

In der kontrastiven Analyse ist es aufschlussreich zu untersuchen, ob bestimmte Attributklassen in einer Sprache häufiger vorkommen als in einer anderen. Gibt es womöglich kulturelle Unterschiede, die sich in der Verwendung von Attributen widerspiegeln?

Fazit

Die kontrastive Analyse der Attribute in der deutschen Sprache zeigt, dass ihre morphologischen, syntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften Besonderheiten aufweisen. Der Vergleich mit anderen Sprachen kann helfen, diese Besonderheiten besser zu verstehen und die grammatische Kompetenz im Deutschen zu vertiefen.

]]> https://web.snauka.ru/en/issues/2024/05/101946/feed 0 https://web.snauka.ru/en/issues/2024/05/102066 https://web.snauka.ru/en/issues/2024/05/102066#comments Thu, 30 May 2024 16:46:14 +0000 author https://web.snauka.ru/issues/2024/05/102066 Arabic is considered the most common of the Semitic languages. The originality and effectiveness of phraseological units of the Arabic language is very high. Today, the study of phraseology and the improvement of dictionaries, manuals and other lexicographical publications based on it is considered a relevant field in Arabic linguistics.

Word and phraseological units are synonymous, antonymic, etc. They form multifaceted semantic connections. Scholars have paid attention to synonomic relations between words and phraseological units.

The problem of connection of the meanings of phraseology with the semantics of the components that make them up and can be used as independent lexical units remains one of the unsolved and at the same time controversial problems.

Among linguists, there are different opinions about whether a word retains its semantic features in the structure of a phraseology. Some scientists think that “a word that is part of a phraseological unit loses its main feature, that is, it remains lexically meaningless.” In fact, the analysis has shown that the meaning of a phraseological unit is not just a simple combination of the meanings of its constituent parts. At the same time, the semantics of the phraseology and its components retain some special connections. As you know, phraseology is formed on the basis of the lexical fund that exists in the language. Some words can be part of a whole group of phraseological units, and some can only form single phraseological units.

Based on the analysis of phraseological units of the Arabic language and their components from the point of view of lexical-semantic connections, the following types can be distinguished among them:

1) phraseological units whose meaning does not depend on the semantics of the lexical units that make them up;

2) phraseological units whose components cannot be connected in free use. The meanings of the phraseological units belonging to this group are based on a figurative view of the objects and phenomena of reality.

All the components of phraseology have their own meaning and are used as an independent unit. But the semantic meaning of a phraseological unit is not related to the lexical meanings of its constituent parts. It is based on the fact that the entire vocabulary comes to a figurative meaning as a result of complex interactions and connections (association) that occur in the minds of representatives of the native language. The figurative meaning is based on the similarity of appearance, structure, characteristic features of things and events. For example,

A phrase, acting in the service of phraseology, loses the characteristic features of the phrase and turns into another unit that retains its own characteristics. It is not denied that phraseologisms and the phrases that make them up can act in language individually, but this does not mean that they can be used as a homonymous series. Because phraseology is qualitatively different from the word structure that forms it.

In most cases, the concepts expressed by phraseology can also be expressed in words. For example, the Arabic word for ” ýitmek” is ” باد” and the phraseology ” ذهب كأمس دابر” is used.

The difference between phraseological units and free phrases is more obvious when it is possible to compare them from the point of view of homonyms. Their similarity is determined by their syntactic structure, and their difference is evident by the semantic connection and imagery of the components.

A group of phraseology refers to a higher degree of sign or a stronger dynamic of action:

In most cases, the use of phraseology in speech is conditioned by the need to express the speaker’s emotional relationship to a certain thing or situation:

Based on the results, it can be noted that words belonging to certain groups are actively used in the composition of phraseology. These may include:

- words meaning mind, intelligence, will, desire;

- names of body parts;

- actions involving physical impact, movement;

- numbers.

In modern Arabic, there are phraseologisms in which the meaning of the constituent parts occurs only as part of a phraseological unit. As a rule, they are as follows:

- verb + noun

- verb + adverb

For example,

The components of this phraseology are individually independent, but connected according to the laws of the Arabic language, they acquire figurative meaning.

If we were talking about a snake, then this phrase could be taken as a normal free phrase. When the conversation is related to a person, it belongs to phraseologism, because it is not natural for a person to change his skin.

Phraseologisms of any language are difficult units to translate. Therefore, the translation of a phraseology is the result of a careful analysis of its various components. When translating phraseological units of the Arabic language, it is necessary to find their variant in the Turkmen language, give their meaning and preserve their imagery, without considering its stylistic function. In the absence of a similar variant of the phraseological unit in the Turkmen language, the translation is based on the search for a variant that is close in meaning. When translating Arabic phraseology into Turkmen language, it is considered appropriate to approach it from a structural-typological and semantic-functional point of view. This allows for the following balance between languages:

- fully equivalent:

- partial equivalent;

- analog:

- non-equivalent (lacunar) units;

The following methods are used for the translation of lacunar units:

- protection;

- descriptive method of translation;

- lexical method of translation;

- combined translation.

The history, culture, everyday life, traditions and other national characteristics of this or other people are more clearly reflected in phraseology than in other units of the language. That is why phraseological units, despite their complexity, are of great interest in teaching foreign languages.

The comparative study of phraseology contributes to the in-depth study of the structure of two languages, and enriches the knowledge of the culture, literature, history, and traditions of the representatives of the studied language.

The translation of Turkmen and Arabic phraseology requires a good knowledge of the lexicon, the ability to analyze the context, a thorough study of history, culture, and traditions.