Philology Matters


Predicativity and the role of secondary predicative constructions in a sentence have always been considered as one of the topical problems of linguistics. The author of the article analyzes specific and similar features of secondary pred-icative constructions of the English and Uzbekl anguages. The category of event is considered asa category, which is important in the analysis ofcognitive features of secondary predicative constructions in the discussed languages. Moreover,the article covers the peculiarities of the structure and semantics of the English and Uzbek secondary predicative constructions. Predicativity is a reflection of the essence of a sentence to the reality, and is expressed in terms of grammatical categories of person, time, and modality. There are two types of predication between the subject and predicate:primary and secondary. Constructions representing primary predication are primary predicative constructions and those which express secondary predication are secondary predicative constructions. Secondary predicative constructions allowa speaker to search for dependencies, interconnections, sequence, logical durations and other relations between events existing in the world and represent these relations using relevant language structures. Secondary predicative construction senable a speaker to simplify, concretize complicated events, by avoiding unnecessary details and focus on the main essence, rather than the events.These means and tools are used in these constructions according to the communicative intension of a speaker as well as the characteristics of the situation.

First Page


Last Page



10. 36078/987654349


1.Abdurakhmanov G. (1981)The syntax of complicated sentence.In the collectionarticles:The structure and history of Turkic languages. Moscow: Nauka.
2.Akimova G.N. (1981)On the valency of transitive verbs in the Russian language// Theoryof language. Methods of its analysis and teaching.Leningrad: Visshayashkola.
3.Arutyunova N.D. (1989)Variations on the subject of a sentence.In the collectionarticles:Invariant syntactic meanings and sentence structure. Moscow: Nauka.
4.Barkhudarov L.S. (2008)The structure of a modern English simple sentence.Moscow:Nauka.
5.Beklemesheva N.N. (2011)Interpretation of secondary predicative constructions in theperspective of actual division of a sentence.The dissertation abstract of the doctor of philological sciences.Moscow.
6.Chomsky N.(2002)Syntactic Structures(Second edition). Berlin-New York: Mouton deGruyter.
7.Furs L.A. (2005)Cognitive aspects of the syntax of English simple sentence: Course book.Tambov: Publishing house of TSU named after G.R. Derjavin.
8.Ilyenko S.G. (2003)Personalization as the most important side of the category of predica-tion// Russistics: selected works. Saint Petersburg.: Publishing house of RSPU named afterA.I. Gertsen. – P. 1925.
9.Irimia M.A. (2012)Secondary Predicates.A thesis submitted in conformity with the re-quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Toronto: Department of Linguistics,University of Toronto.
10.Jespersen O. (1983)A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles.Part IV: Syntax.(Second edition) Third Volume, Time and Tense. Einar Munksgaard / George Allen &.Unwin Ltd.
11.Khayrullaev M., Haqberdiev M. (1993)Logics.Tashkent: O’qituvchi.
12.Kholiqov H. (1993)Complicated sentence of the modern Uzbek literary language its features.The dissertation abstract of the candidate of philological sciences. Tashkent.
13.Labov W. (1998)Sociolinguistic Patterns.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
14.Litvin F.A. (1987)Notes on the concept and term “predicativity”// Predication and po-lipredication. Chelyabinsk: Publishing House of ChSPI.
15.Mahmudov N. (1982) Predication and polypredication// O’zbek tili va adabiyoti. Tashkent, volume 2. P. 18-21.
16.Mahmudov N., Nurmonov A. (1995)Theoretical grammar of the Uzbek language (Syntax).Tashkent: O’qituvchi.
17.Mamatov M. (1990)Secondary predicate in the structure of simple sentence in the Uzbeklanguage.The dissertation abstract of the doctor of philological sciences. Tashkent.
18.Nurmonov A., Mahmudov N. (1992)Theoretical grammar of the Uzbek language.Tash-kent: O’qituvchi.
19.Nurmonov A., Mahmudov N. and others. (1992)Contextual syntax of the Uzbek language.Tashkent:Fan.
20.Pupinin Yu.A. (1992)Impersonal predicate and subject-object relations in English// Prob-lems of linguistics. Moscow:Progress. – No 1. – P. 5661.
21.Rasulova M.I. (2005)The basis of lexical categorization in linguistics.Tashkent: Fan.
22.Raxmatullaev Sh. (2010)Present day Uzbek (book 1).Tashkent: Mumtoz so’z.
23.Rosch E. (1978)Principles of categorization// E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognition andCategorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Pp. 27-48.
24.Safarov Sh. (2006)Cognitive linguistics. Djizakh: Sangzor.
25.Skrebtsova T.G. (2011)Cognitive linguistics (A course of lectures).– S.Peterburg: Facultyof philology of SpbSU.
26.Sweet H. (1998)A New English Grammar(5-th edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.Parsons Terence. (1990)Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in the Sub-atomicSemantics.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
28.Ungerer F., Schmid H.J. (1996)An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.– London: Longman.
29.Yakubov J. (2006)The features of the expression of the category of modality in logics andlinguistics.The dissertation abstract of the doctor of philological sciences. Tashkent.
30.Yuldashev A.N. (1977)Ratio of participial and personal verb forms in Turkic languages.Moscow: Nauka.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.