•  
  •  
 

The Light of Islam

Abstract

The current article considers the lexicological way of conveying the category of politeness in the Turkish language. It identifies the lexicological means of expressing polite-ness in the Turkish language and their methodological features. The abundance of words of respect in the Turkish language indicates that the level of expression of the category of politeness in the language is extensive. By activity and content, personal pronouns, terms of relationship, and semantic units expressing politeness are parts of lexical means of courtesy. In Turkish, the category of politeness is manifested in personal, interrogative, and also in proper pronouns. Revealed the semantic development of lexical units, thus reflecting the politeness category. The content illustrates the stylistic features’ use of pronouns that convey inconsistency. At the same time, instead of pronouns, the use of words such as bendeniz, köleniz, and kulunuz shows the high level of politeness of the speaker concerning the hearer. Moreover, there is an emphasis on the utilization of kinship terms to express the category of courtesy. As you know, the relationship between members of society is formed based on the relationship of individuals. Therefore, the transmission of politeness using kinship terms is more ancient. Some lexical units expressing good manners include the words hanım, efendi, bay, and bey. In the category of politeness, synonyms are hanımefendi, hanım, bayan, kadın, hatun, kari, which means “woman”. The sequence of the above expressions reflects the politeness level from highest to neutral. The article also discusses the endings that accompany the mentioned lexical units. These include ending with m (-im, -ım / -üm, -um) and ending with -lar, -ler. Besides their categorical function, the above endings are non-categorical and functionally occur in expressing politeness. The article depicts that morphological forms accompany lexical means and serve to supplement the content. The features of lexical and morphological means of using politeness in Turkish are revealed based on these accents.

First Page

87

Last Page

98

References

1.Imamova X. (2016) Kishilik olmoshlari hurmat kategoriyasi kontekstida. Oʼzbekiston davlat jahon tillari universiteti «Oʼzbekistonda xorijiy tillar» ilmiy-metodik elektron jurnal № 1. http://journal.fledu.uz. Toshkent.

2. Yoʼldosheva F. (1986) “Аfandi” epitetining etimologiyasiga doir // Oʼzbek tili terminologiyasi va uning taraqqiyoti perspektivalari. I Respublika terminologiya konferentsiyasi materiallari. –Toshkent: Fan, 110- 111 bet.

3. Rustamiy, S. (2018). Typological peculiarties of science of balaghah, rhetoric and stylistics. The Light of Islam, 2018(1), 16. ;

4. Rustamiy, S. (2019). On significance of science of Balāǧat in achieving linguisticaesthetic perfection. The Light of Islam, 2019(4), 14.

5. Safarov Sh. (2008) Pragmalingvistika. – Toshkent: Oʼzbekiston milliy entsiklopediyasi. 285 b.

6. Sodiqov Q. (2006) Turkiy yozma yodgorliklar tili: adabiy tilning yuzaga kelishi va tiklanishi. – Toshkent: ToshDShI, 148- b.

7.Turdieva, D. M. (2019). The religious tolerance in Malaysia. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 12 (80), 411-416. Soi: http://s-o-i.org/1.1/TAS-12-80-80 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2019.12.80.80

8. Oʼzbek tilining izohli lugʼati. (2006) Ikki tomli, 1-tom. – Moskva: Rus tili, 1981. 63- bet; Oʼzbek tilining izohli lugʼati. Besh tomli, 1-tom. – Toshkent: Oʼzbekiston milliy entsiklopediyasi. Davlat ilmiy nashriyoti.117- bet.

9. Hojieva X. (2000) Kishilik olmoshlari va hurmat maʼnosi. Oʼzbek tili va adabiyoti. – Toshkent, -№ 4. 37- b.

10. Аxmanova O.S. (1966) Slovar' lingvisticheskix terminov. – Moskva.

11. Gaffarov M.А. (1976) Persidsko-russkiy slovar' 1. – Mockva: Nauka, Str. 279.

12. Djevdet-zade X. i Kononov А.N. (1934) Grammatika sovremennogo turetskogo yazika. – Leningrad, Str. 57-67;

13. Radlov V.V. (1893-1911) Opit slovarya tyurskix narechiy, 1-1V. S-Pb.; p.s. O Slove Xan- 11; -S.1662.

14. Sattarov G.F. (1975) Otchestva i kategoriya vejlivosti-pochtitel'nosti v sovremennoy tatarskoy antroponimii // Sovetskaya Tyurkologiya. – Baku.-№1, 80-86. Str. 82.

15. Dono, K. (2020). Features of information exchange aspects in the information society. Ижтимоий фанлар, 2(3).

16. Banguoğlu T. (1986) Türkçenin Grameri. – Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basım Evi. 1986. S. 356-371.

17. Bozkurt F. (1999) Türklerin Dili. – Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. 1999. S. 42.

18. Kalandarova, D. (2020). Features of aspects of information exchange. The Light of Islam, 2020(1), 210-214.

19. Çağatay S. (2008) Türkçe’de ‘Kadın’ için Kullanılan Sözler // Prof.Dr. Saadet Çağatay’ın Yayınlanmış Tüm Makaleleri. C.1. – İstanbul: Ayaz Tahir Türkistan İdil-Ural Vakfı, S. 91.

20. Gencan T.N. (1971) Dilbilgisi. – İstanbul: Fen Fakültesi(Döner Sermaye) Basımevi. S. 214-228;

21. Turdiyeva, Dilafruz (2020) "FROM HISTORY OF MALAYSIEN EDUCATION SYSTEM," The Light of Islam: Vol. 2020 : Iss. 2 , Article 20. Available at: https://uzjournals.edu.uz/iiau/vol2020/iss2/20

22. Güntekin R. N. (1992) Çalıkuşu. – İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi. - 408 s.

23. Grönbech K. (1995) Türkçenin yapısı. Çeviren: Akalın M., – Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları. S. 63.

24. Demircan Ö. (1977) Türkiye Türkçesinde Kök ve Ek Bileşimi. – Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, -126 s.

25. Doğan D.Mehmet. (1994) Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. – İstanbul: Ülke Yayınları, S. 1169.

26. Doerfer G. (1887) Türkischa und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 1, 1963; 11 1965; III, 1967, – Wiasfaden. P.s.141-183.; Hübschmann Н. Etymologic und Lautlehre der Assetischen Sprahe. – Strassburg, 1887. -Р. 133.

28.Turdieva, D. M. (2019). The religious tolerance in Malaysia. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 12 (80), 411-416.

29. Hatiboğlu V. (1974) Türkçenin ekleri. – Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları. S.106.

30. Hengirmen M. (1995) Türkçe Dilbilgisi. – Ankara: Engin Yayınevi. S. 121

31. Korkmaz Z. (2007) Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri. – Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, - 1224 s.

32. Rasanen M. (1969) Etimologischen Wörterbuchs der Türk Sprachen. Versucheines – Helsinki. Р. 154, 219.;

33. Türkçe sözlük 1 (1988) .A-J,. 2.К-Z. – Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basım Evi. S. 169, S. 909.

34. Ziema P. (1987) Some Remarks On Old Turkish Words For ‘Wife’, Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı, Belleten, – Ankara: TTKBE, 1992. S. 305-309.

35. QB – Yusuf Xos Xojib.(1971) Qutadgʼu Bilig. Transkriptsiya va hozirgi oʼzbek tiliga tavsif. Karimov Q. – Toshkent, Fan, -964 b.

36. КВ – Yusuf Has Haçib. Kutadgu Bilig. (1991) Çeviri / Arat R.R – Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, - 477 s.

37. Z.K – İzgü Muzaffer. (1995) Zıkkımın Kökü. –Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi. -S. -291.

Share

COinS