Isomorphic and allomorphic features of the homogeneous direct objects in modern English and Uzbek



Grammatical and logical significance of homogeneous direct objects are the uniformity of the concepts expressed by homogeneous direct objects in the language. This significance causes homogeneous direct objects to have position in the sentence. In uniformity of sentence parts is determined by different degrees of lexico-semantic generalization.

The concept of homogeneous direct object is as widely used as that of other secondary homogeneous sentences and has just as long a tradition. For example, as with grammatical subject, it is possible to provide criteria for homogeneous direct objects in English, but the criteria do not necessarily carry over to other languages. Keeping to the construction, we can say that in sentences the following the verb is the direct object.

1. John broke the cup and the glass. = Jon piyola bilan stakanni sindirib qoy’di.

Nick can drive the car and the truck. = Nik avtomobil va yuk mashinani hayday oladi.

Lora ate the bread and the cake. = Lora nonni va pirogni yedi.

Direct objects can be homogeneous after the following verbs and verb groups in both English and Uzbek and this case considered as the isomorphic feature of the homogeneous direct object: to appreciate, to know, to recognize, to comprehend, to realize, to value, to empathize, to work out, to see, to like, to love, to distinguish, to tell, to distinguish, to accept, to admit, to fulfill, to accomplish, to carry out, to complete, to differentiate, etc.

We can say that the homogeneous direct object is never preceded by a preposition in English as allomorphic feature — in the sentence like Martha chewed on the bread and on the chewing-gum, in this sentence bread and chewing-gum are not direct objects, and the entity it denotes is not completely affected by the action of chewing. Neutral active declarative sentences typically have passive counterparts. One of the properties of the English called homogeneous direct objects is that they correspond to the grammatical subjects of passive sentences. This is shown in the following examples, the passive counterparts of above mentioned sentences.

1. The cup and the glass were broken by John.

The car and the truck can be driven by Nick.

The bread and the cake were eaten by Lora.

Even for English alone, difficulties appear. One problem is that the criteria, even with the help of the adverb typically, do not extend unequivocally to other constructions. Let’s consider the passive sentences in:

How is a girl and a boy to be chatted if they do not go out?

These fields and hills were marched and over by all the armies of Europe.

These passive sentences contain grammatical subjects (on the criteria applicable to English), but their active counterparts do not contain homogeneous direct objects, let’s compare:

1. How is someone to chat to a girl and a boy if they do not go out?
2. All the armies of Europe marched over these fields and hills.

In these sentences, the correspondents of the grammatical subjects are inside prepositional phrases: to a girl and a boy, over these fields and hills. The examples show that either more than homogeneous indirect objects can be converted to grammatical subjects in the passive construction or we have to regard chat to and march over as single verbs that take direct objects.

Another difficulty with English is that some apparent active transitive clauses have no corresponding passive: That car weighs two or three tons is not matched by Two or three tons are weighed by that car, Arthur measures either six or seven feet is not matched by Either six or seven feet are measured by Arthur, Her daughters resemble both Lucy and Linda is not matched by Lucy and Linda are resembled by her daughters and The cage contained a panda and a jaguar cannot be converted to A panda and a jaguar were contained by the cage.

In spite of the uncertainties mentioned above, in the construction of English we do have criteria for recognizing homogeneous direct objects with most verbs combining with two noun phrases. (We exclude the link verbs, they include be, get, seem, become and others.)

Another criterion that has been proposed for homogeneous direct objects in English relates to the positions occupied by particles such as back where a verb combines with two noun phrases, the particle occurs after the verb, but before or after the direct object, as in:

He sent back the diamond necklace and the gold ring.

He sent the diamond necklace back and the gold ring.

In clauses with three noun phrases, the occurrence of the particle is limited.

1. He sent her cousin the diamond necklace and gold ring.

1. He sent back her cousin the diamond necklace and the gold ring.
2. He sent her cousin back the diamond necklace and gold ring.
3. He sent her cousin the diamond necklace back and the gold ring.

The sentence He sent her cousin back the diamond necklace and gold ring is wrong, although back is in the same position as He sent back the diamond necklace and the gold ring, between the verb and the immediately following noun phrase.

The sentence He sent her cousin the diamond necklace back and the gold ring is not acceptable to all speakers, although back follows the noun phrase immediately to the right of the verb. To be balanced against this criterion is the fact that her cousin in He sent back her cousin the diamond necklace and the gold ring can become the grammatical subject of the corresponding passive: Her cousin was sent back the diamond necklace and the gold ring by him which of the two criteria is to be given preference: the position of back or becoming grammatical subject of the passive.

Another complication that deserves mention is that pronouns behave differently from full noun phrases with respect to back in the sentence He sent back her cousin the diamond necklace and the gold ring. The sentence He sent back her cousin the diamond necklace and the gold ring merits no more than a question mark, but the substitution of him for her cousin yields an acceptable sentence: He sent him back the diamond necklace and the gold ring.

The general description of homogeneous direct object in English is fragmented, unlike the description of grammatical subject. The latter can be recognized for any construction, but for homogeneous direct object only one construction provides solid evidence, the basic active declarative construction, both in itself and in its relationship with the passive. As for the concept of subject, one criterion can be added for some languages other than English.

A homogeneous direct object will follow a transitive verb in both English and Uzbek [a type of action verb]. Homogeneous direct objects can be nouns, pronouns, phrases, or clauses. If we can identify the subject and verb in a sentence, then finding the direct object is easy. Just we should remember this simple formula:

In English: subject + verb + what? or who? = homogeneous direct object

In Uzbek: ega (subject) + uyushgan vositasiz to’ldiruvchi (homogeneous direct object) + nimani (what?), kimni? (who?) + fe’l (verb).

Here are examples of the formula in action:

He … played both the violin and the piano better than most amateurs.

He = subject; played = verb. He played what? The violin and the piano = homogeneous direct object.

We found a number of detective stories in her room and two or three volumes of poetry.

We = subject; found = verb. We found what? a number of detective stories in her room and two or three volumes of poetry = homogeneous direct object.

Let’s see this case in Uzbek:

Chunki qutidor, Yusufbek hojining qanday kishi bo‘lg‘anlig‘ini, bu kunda qaysi ishda ekanligini va o‘ziga bo‘lg‘an munosabatini mayda-chuyda tafsilotlari bilan so‘zlab chiqdi.

To be conclude, the homogeneous direct object must be a noun or pronoun in both English and Uzbek. A direct object will never be in a prepositional phrase in English. The direct object will not equal the subject as the predicate nominative, nor does it have a linking verb as a predicate nominative sentences does. In English a sentence with a compound verb may have two different direct objects in it.

References:

1. Юсупов У. К. Проблемы сопоставительной лингвистики. Автореф. дис. д-ра. филол. наук. М., 1983. — 37 с.
2. Ғаппоров М., Қосимова Р. Инглиз тили грамматикаси. — Т.: Турон-Иқбол, 2010. 336 б.
3. Ўзбек тили лексикологияси. –Тошкент, «Фан», 1984.
4. Ўзбек тилининг изоҳли луғати. 5 жилдли. 1-жилд. –Тошкент, «Ўзбекистон миллий энциклопедияси», 2006. 376 б.
5. Walker Elaine, Ellsworth Steve. Grammar practice. — L. Pearson education, 2000, 178 p.
6. Brontë В. Wuthering heights. — M.:Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1963. P.367
7. Dickens Ch. A tale of two cities. — L.: The Electric Book Company Ltd, 1998. 497 р.
8. Oybek. “Navoiy”. — Т.: «Sharq» nashriyot-matbaa aksiyadorlik kompaniyasi bosh tahririyati, 2004. 496 b.
9. Qodiriy А. O’tgan kunlar. — Т.: Sharq, 2004. 384 b.
10. Qodirov P. Yulduzli tunlar. — Т.: Sharq, 2008. 304 b.