event

Khurshid Khayrullaev
(Samarkand)

TO THE QUESTION OF HIERARCHICAL RELATIONS OF SENTENCES WITH THE COMPLEX SYNTACTIC DESIGN

It is known, that the sentence is basic unit of a syntactic level and active unit of speech. However, when the question is about the hierarchical relations of linguistic units, the question of the status of the sentence remains disputable until now.
In our opinion, the sentence, being an object of use of language units in speech, deduces them also on other layer. Units of language, which cannot receive communicative function in separated form, get communicative characteristics at the sentence level. Certainly, the basic function of language is that it is means of communication. However, language reaches it only in speech (through the sentence) [1, 107]. In this matter V.A.Zvegintsev (В.А. Звегинцев) emphasized E.Benvenist's idea: « … sentences as units of speech, as mentioned by expressed E.Benvenist (Э. Бенвенист), are outside of language world » [2, 242].
Certainly, the sentence in speech carries out communicative function. Thus it operates proceeding from requirements of the certain situation, as real use of language is closely connected with pragmatic factors.
Complex syntactic design (СSD), being unit of higher level, than the sentence, even more concretizes communicative function of the sentence and informs it additional functions. Certainly, no less than two independent sentences participate in СSD structure and each of them is in close connection with each other. If the given sentences are taken separately, than they lose something both in substantial, and in communicative aspects. It shows, certain hierarchical relations are formed between the sentences and СSD. However, within the СSD framework, sentence can function in the form of both independent, and dependent component.
Hierarchical relations in frameworks СSD can be presented as the following formula: D←P1←P2 (where D - the discourse-text, P1 - the first component of the text (the independent sentence), P2 - the second element of the text (the independent sentence), a sign ← specifies the order of hierarchical relations). Apparently, independent sentences enter hierarchical relations with the text not directly, but one by means of another. Here, both the form of expression and the form of the content of the sentence have great importance. In this case, one of components СSD is more important than another. The second component as though serves as "explanation" of the first participant. Therefore, it becomes a part of СSD by means of the first component (in a broad sense, certainly).
СSD whose components have equal relations among themselves, from the derivational point of view, are formed on the basis of no less than two deep structures. Speaking about it, B.Turnijazov emphasizes: «Syntactic derivation of СSD with equal components assumes connection of not less than two sentences, each of which is based on independent deep structure » [3,13]:
1. Ким нима ҳақида ўйлаётгани унга қоронғи, аммо унинг ўзи бемор ётган Дилафрўзнинг тақдирини ўйларди.
2. Лобарнинг калласи ишлайди, зеҳни ўткир.
Apparently, the first of the given examples consist of two independent sentences, each of which has deep structure formed with the help of words: қоронғи and ўйламоқ. Prior to the beginning of derivational process in both sentences empty places of deep structures are filled and nuclear structures are formed: ўйлаётгани (N) қоронғи (V); ўзи (N) ўйларди (V).
After these changes derivational process begins.
Derivational stages of first component СSD. Nuclear structure = Ўйлаётгани қоронғи (NV). Derivative structure - the first stage of a syntactic derivation = Ўйлаётгани унга қоронғи (NXV). Derivative structure - the second stage of a syntactic derivation = Нима ҳақида ўйлаётгани унга қоронғи (X2X3NX1V). Derivative structure - the third stage of a syntactic derivation = Ким нима ҳақида ўйлаётгнаи унга қоронғи (X4X2X3NX1V).
Derivational stages of second component СSD. Nuclear structure = ўзи ўйларди (NV). Derivative structure - the first stage of a syntactic derivation = Унинг ўзи ўйларди (NXV). Derivative structure - the second stage of a syntactic derivation = Унинг ўзи Дилафрўзнинг тақдирини ўйларди (X1NX2Х3V). Derivative structure - the third stage of a syntactic derivation = Унинг ўзи бемор ётган Дилафрўзнинг тақдирини ўйларди (X1NX4X5X2X3V).
However, in spite of the fact that the given sentences are relatively independent in the aspect of content and syntactic form, from the hierarchical relations point of view, they are not equal to each other. As with СSD and one sentence takes up with his help - another all over again.
P1 (a small derivative) ←P2 (a small derivative) ←D (the big derivative).
At the same time, it is necessary to note, that hierarchical relations of components СSD (with equal components) can be realized directly. Such position is observed in conjunctionless СSD:
Лобарнинг калласи ишлайди, зеҳни ўткир.
In this case hierarchical relations between СSD and it's components can be presented in the following formula: P1 → D ←P2.
In some situations of speech arise multicomponent СSD. In the following situation, for example, each component СSD enters with it hierarchical relations independently:
Билиб қўй, бизда таёқ интизоми йўқ ва уни талаб қилиб ишлайдиганларга орамизда жой ҳам йўқ.
Certainly, from the point of view of predicativity, in such cases together with poly-predicativity, over-predicativity arises. In other words, except for predicativity which is expressed with sentences separately, there is also a certain "incorporated" relation to the reality[4, 20]. As language units, speech units also enter hierarchical relations with units of higher level separately. It can be seen on an above mentioned example:

Р1 Р2 Р3

Similar relations are observed and in СSD, organized without participation of the conjunctions. Given type of СSD can consist of several components. In traditional works, such syntactic designs are referred as conjunction-less compound sentences. However, irrespective of the fact how they are named, we see the status of the text in them. Also, relations between components are expressed not by intonation, and their content "weight" and some morphological means [3,19]. In A.M.Stetsenko's opinion, in such cases predicative designs enter mutual relations and form the uniform predicative center, and syntactic links between them are expressed through a modality and a category of a kind - time, a word order and through some lexical means [5,6].
All these questions, certainly, are connected to formation of common syntactic structure СSD. However, relative independence of components in given type СSD is one of major factors of the introduction into hierarchical relations:
Зуҳра машинани кўздан кечирди: унга кўмир ортилган, қора кузовига чиқишнинг иложи йўқ; фақат the driver ёнида биттагина кишига жой a pine forest эди (Ҳ. Ғулом. Тошкентликлар).
Apparently, four independent sentences enter into hierarchical relations with given СSD. For the reason, they have among themselves equal, hierarchical relations also are based on equality:

Р1 Р2 Р3 Р4

It should be noted, that in Turkic languages the degree of formation СSD with equal components is high enough. It has developed historically. As fairly marks N.Z.Gadzhiev (Н.З. Гаджиева) «First of all, conjunctionless sentences were one of strong competitors of conjunction method of subordination. The analysis of conjunctionless combinations shows, what significant role in their formation is played by the structural attributes, which easily replace the conjunctions: lexical conditionality between members in parts of the conjunctionless as a whole, morphological registration of predicates and so forth » [6, 335].
Until now, hierarchical relations of units of speech, including conjunctionless СSD in Turkic languages has not been the object of special research. Question of the syntactic nature of conjunction and conjunctionless compound sentences has also not been studied enough. For example, G.Abdurahmanov (Г. Абдурахманов) about conjunction compound sentences says the following: «Conjunctionless compound sentences the most insufficiently studied area of a problem of compound sentences. Such position is typical not only for Turkic, but also for other languages » [7,61].
Nowadays, there is a great attention to the research from the system point of view of the language phenomena, which is impossible about the phenomena of speech. As writes G.I.Andreeva (Г.И. Андреева): «Syntax as special system in language, as well as «system of systems» remains in many respects terra incognita, representing the researcher vast a field of action » [8, 162]. Once and N.M.Peterson (Н.М. Петерсон) reminding about formation of syntax on the basis of logic concepts, spoke about necessity to refuse theories about the main and secondary sentence parts, the complex and compound sentences, in general from theories about hypotaxis and parataxis [9, 326].
Certainly, until today, in the field of syntax, including compound sentences, many serious researches have been carried out. But still there are the questions demanding steadfast attention. In particular, till now it is not taken into account, that the concept "compound sentence" prevents correct judgement of hierarchical relations of speech units. And it, in turn, becomes an obstacle in a way of the relation of considerable syntactic problems.

THE LITERATURE

1. Мурзин Л.Н. К соотношению уровней языка в плане синтаксиса // Уровни языка и их взаимодействие. -М., 1967. -С.107.
2. Звегинцев В.А. Язык и лингвистическая теория. -М., 1973. -С. 242.
3. Турниязов Б.Н. Ҳозирги ўзбек тилида тенг компонентли мураккаб синтактик қурилмалар деривацияси // Автореф. канд. дисс., -Самарқанд, 2006.     -С. 13.
4. Хайруллаев Х. Сўз, сўз бирикмаси ва гапнинг предикативликка муносабати // Автореф. канд. дисс., -Тошкент, 2001. -С. 20.
5. Стеценко А.М. Бессоюзные сложные предложения, сопоставляемые со сложносочиненными предложениями // Историческая грамматика русского языка. Синтаксис. Сложное предложение. -М., 1979. -С. 6.
6. Гаджиева Н.З. Основные пути развития структуры тюркских языков.             -М., 1973. -С. 335.
7. Абдураҳмонов Ғ. Қўшма гап синтаксиси. -Тошкент, 1964, 61-бет.
8. Андреева Г.И. Релевантные и избыточные признаки в структуре сложного предложения с относительной частицей er в древнеисландском языке // Система и уровни языка. -М., 1969. -С. 162.
9. См. об этом: Прокопович Н.Н. Вопросы синтаксиса русского языка.            -М., 1974. -С.326.