American Journal Of Philological Sciences
127
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
127-129
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-35
Functional Semantic Features Of Interrogative Sentences
And Their Significance In The Text
Abdullaeva Dilorom Akhmedovna
Candidate Of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department Of Uzbek Language And Literature, Russian And English
Languages, Bukhara State Medical Institute, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
17 June 2025
Abstract:
The article examines interrogative units and their functional-semantic aspects, the importance of
interrogative units in the organization of the communicative field. The main function of interrogative units is to
ask for content, which is revealed in examples. The article also scientifically analyzes the structure, semantics, and
methodological use of interrogative sentences.
Keywords:
Interrogative sentence, interrogative category, functional-semantic field of interrogativeness, core and
periphery of the field, typology of interrogative sentences.
Introduction:
The study of interrogative sentences has
been a significant topic in linguistics since historical
times. Interrogative sentences are characterized from
the perspective of their structure, semantics, stylistic
use, role in communicative action, etc. Such versatility
indicates their capacity, complexity and ambiguity.
However, interrogative constructions do not exist in
language, primarily in speech, by themselves, but
rather in a certain textual continuity, speech, and
require understanding at a high categorical level. The
first studies on the study of interrogative sentences in
Russian linguistics were carried out in the scientific
works of E.V. Gulyga and E.I. Shendels. [1, p. 97].
Linguist A.V. Bondarko states that "a set of interacting
means constitutes a system - a grammatical-lexical
field.
Interrogative sentences are multi functional and can be
used for different purposes depending on the type of
discourse they refer to. Functions of questions in
discourse are still a relevant problem for such areas as
theoretical linguistics in general and pragmatics in
particular. They are studied in relation to intonation
and lexical or syntactic marking although many aspects
have not been researched yet especially those
concernin
g categories of questions and speakers’
intentions in the process of using interrogative
sentences (Hautli-Janisz et al., 2021). When we speak
of the principle of the field, in the methods of analysis,
in the approach to linguistic facts, we mean the
important aspects of the field as a separate type of
system, grouping and interaction of linguistic elements.
Functional-semantic fields are language groups that
have the following properties:
1) the presence of common invariant semantic
functions in the linguistic means included in this group;
2) the mutual grammatical and lexical influence of not
only homogeneous, but also heterogeneous elements;
3) a structure in which the following properties play a
decisive role: a) the division "center (core) - periphery";
b) gradual transitions, partial intersections, "common
segments" between the components of a given
grouping and different groups. The functional-semantic
field has a two-sided character and has a content plane
and a plane of expression. The plane of expression is
known It encompasses the formal-structural aspect of
all the diverse linguistic means that are elements of a
field.
A question is a statement intended to induce the
listener to inform the speaker of something that
requires clarification. Any question is based on some
knowledge. By formulating a question, the questioner
thereby wants to clarify this knowledge, to supplement
and deepen it. A question is a form of thought that
serves as a transitional link from incomplete
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
128
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
information (ignorance) to more complete information
(new knowledge) based on the initial information
(existing knowledge). The deep essence of the invariant
of the interrogative category is that, with all the
differences in speech situations where it is possible to
use an interrogative construction or a construction
corresponding in meaning to an interrogative one, the
meaning of “request for information” remains
unchanged. This invariant is seen both in rhetorical
questions and in other types of transformed sentences.
The specific nature of the category of interrogativity
and the field system of linguistic means and meanings
that forms it is expressed in numerous interactions with
other systemic integrations (motivation, expression of
will, evaluation, emotiveness), which are included from
a certain angle in the sphere of the question or reveal
zones of partial overlap with it, and thus constitute the
distant periphery of the functional-semantic field of
interrogativeness [2, p. 205]. When determining the
attribution of a particular interrogative sentence to the
core or periphery, one can be guided by several
components: the degree of expression of the
categorical meaning, the form of its presentation, the
pragmatic attitude of the speaker. The syntactic
structure of the interrogative category, organized
according to the field principle, is confirmed by the
following fundamental features: it has its own syntactic
unit
–
interrogative sentence
–
for expressing
interrogative semantics; a clear opposition between
the core and the periphery, based on the distinction
between primary and secondary functions. The
invariant meaning for all components of the core and
the near periphery is the meaning of the query;
interaction with other functional-semantic fields [3, p.
290].
Not only does the interrogative field as a whole have a
complex structure, but also the microfields within the
field are structurally subdivided into microfields of
subsequent levels. Depending on the nature of the
sentence containing the question, the number of its
components changes. The semantic differences of the
interrogative field consist in the number of
components of each of the microfields [7, p. 74]. Thus,
as this material shows, the opinions of researchers
differ in their understanding of the functional-semantic
field of interrogativeness.
In communicative linguistics of the text, continuing the
tradition of functional analysis of language means in
various spheres of social communication, the question
is posed not only about how a particular text is
organized in formal-structural and thematic-semantic
respects, but also about why a given text form in the
totality of its constituent structural elements is the
most adequate in the embodiment of the author's
intent. The "why" question is addressed to the
disclosure of motivations that lie outside the language,
but dictate to the speaker / writer the choice of the
corresponding linguistic materiality of the text. At the
same time, the linguistic forms from which the text is
created are chosen by the producer not arbitrarily, but
in accordance with the extent to which their functional
potential corresponds to the target settings
implemented in a specific sphere of social and
communicative
practice.
Correspondence/non-
correspondence of linguistic means to the general goals
of communication in a particular sphere can serve as
the basis for their conditional division into two classes
of unequal size: typical means, which have a high
frequency and form in their totality the “generally
accepted language of communication”
in a given
sphere, and atypical means, rarely used and even
substantively dissonant with the communicative tasks
of the corresponding sphere.
In the context of indirect communication, statements
in the form of questions proper are used to pose a
scientific
problem
that
requires
theoretical
understanding from the author's point of view. This
function of interrogative structures is most clearly
manifested in the titles of scientific papers, as well as in
the headings of their structural-compositional parts.
Examples here include the titles of articles by Jürgen
Schiewe
("Was
ist
Sprachkritik?
Einige
programmaticischeÜberlegungen") (Schiewe, p. 19)
and Heinz Kretzenbacher ("Wie durchsichtig ist die
Sprache der Wissenschaften?") [5].
Observation of the textual material, moreover, shows
that interrogative sentences with the function of
formulating the problematic, which are not explicitly
prepared by the pretext, are syntactically independent
and tend to be used in the initial paragraphs of sections
or at the boundaries of paragraphs of linguistic works.
Their use, therefore, has a structural-compositional
dimension; for example: (1) Der Ressourcencharakter
der Sprache und das sprachliche Handeln Offensichtlich
haben Sprachen, hat Sprache Struktur. Oder, anders
gesagt, sie hat eine Menge von Strukturen. Was hat es
damit auf sich? Hier kann es nützlich sein... (Ehlich II, S.
17); (2) Wissenschaftssprachliche Strukturen und der
Rahmen der Fachsprachenanalyse Die in § 3
vorgestellten Daten sind leider keine Einzelfälle. Wie
repräsentativ sie sind, ist auf der Grundlage
umfangreicher Korpora weiter zu eruieren. Was aber
kennzeichnet die Art von sprachlichen Strukturen, die
den Kandidaten solche erhebliche Mühe gemacht
haben? Immerhin haben... (Ehlich I, S. 336)
REFERENCES
Гулыга, Е.В. Грамматико
-
лексические поля в
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
129
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
современном немецком языке / Е.В. Гулыга, Е.И.
Шендельс. –
М., 1969
Ахматова, О.С. Словарь лингвистических терминов.
–
М., 1996
Бондарко, А.В. Теория значения в системе
функциональной
грамматики
на
материале
русского языка. –
М., 2002.
Львова, О.В. Функционально
-
семантическое поле
вопросительности в немецком языке. –
М., 2012.
\
Kretzenbacher, H. L. Wie durchsichtig ist die Sprache
der Wissenschaften? / H. L. Kretzenbacher // Linguistik
der Wissenschaftssprache / H. L. Kretzenbacher, H.
Weinrich (Hrsg.).
–
Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1995.
S. 15
–
35.
Ehlich K. Sprachliches Handeln
–
Interaktion und
sprachliche Strukturen [Speech acts - interaction and
linguistic structures]. Grammatik und Interaktion.
Untersuchungen
zum
Zusammenhang
von
grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen
[Grammar and interaction. Studies on the correlation
of grammatical structures and discussion processes] /
A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler, Th. Spranz-Fogasy (Hrsg.).
Radolfzell, Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, 2006, S. 11-
20
