ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
68
GRADUONOMY IN THE GRAMMATICAL AND SEMANTIC
CATEGORIES OF THE VERB IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Shahlo Irkinovna Mavlyanova
Lecturer, Department of Management, Business, and Humanities
Turin Polytechnic University in Tashkent
Email: sh.mavlyanova@polito.uz
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15496992
Abstract
This article explores the phenomenon of graduonomy within the
grammatical and semantic categories of verbs in the English and Uzbek
languages. Graduonomy, as a subtype of semantic gradation, reflects the
hierarchy and intensity of meanings expressed through verbal forms. The
research aims to identify how different levels of meaning, modality, and
intensity are encoded in verb categories such as tense, aspect, voice, and mood.
The comparative analysis draws attention to cross-linguistic similarities and
discrepancies that emerge in representing verbal gradation. The findings
contribute to a deeper understanding of typological distinctions and help refine
language teaching and translation strategies.
Keywords:
graduonomy, verb categories, semantics, grammar, English,
Uzbek, aspect, modality, comparison
In linguistic studies, the concept of graduonomy refers to the semantic
gradation or scaling between linguistic units within a specific category. While
often applied to adjectives and adverbs, its application to verbs—particularly in
relation to grammatical and semantic categories—has received limited scholarly
attention. In the context of English and Uzbek, two typologically distinct
languages, this concept offers unique insights into how languages express
gradation in action, state, and modality. A comparative-descriptive method was
employed to analyze verb-related graduonomic structures in English and Uzbek.
Examples were drawn from corpora, literary texts, dictionaries, and grammar
manuals.
Verbs are a part of speech characterized by a complex system of
grammatical categories.
The various verb forms, which differ in specific meanings but are united by
a common semantic core, collectively form the system of grammatical categories
that express actions. The system of grammatical forms unique to verbs
determines their grammatical categories. Regardless of whether a verb
functions as a main predicate or otherwise within a sentence, it must belong to
at least one of the grammatical categories specific to verbs. These categories
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
69
include voice, mood, tense, person-number, and polarity (affirmative/negative
forms) [1].
The data reveal that both English and Uzbek demonstrate graduonomic
structures in their verb systems, though the means of expression differ
significantly. English primarily uses analytic structures and modal auxiliaries,
while Uzbek employs morphological gradation, reduplication, and lexical
compounding.
For example, English relies on tense and aspect combinations (e.g., has been
doing implies more persistence than did), whereas in Uzbek, the use of
intensifying morphemes or verbs achieves a similar effect (e.g., ko‘rib chiqmoq,
ko‘rib chiqib chiqmoq).
Moreover, modality in both languages reflects complex gradations of
certainty and obligation, but Uzbek structures allow for more layered and
culturally nuanced expressions—such as those indicating social politeness or
indirection.
In addition to being subject to semantic gradation, verbs can also differ in
the degree of certain features within their grammatical categories. Among Uzbek
linguists who have studied graduonymy, only O. Bozorov has briefly addressed
the issue of gradation at the morphological level in his research, where he
explains that gradation exists even within the categories of verbs. Below, we will
analyze how gradation manifests within these categories. First, we will examine
how graduonymy appears in the category of voice, based on the views of various
researchers.
The voice category of verbs serves to fill and define the verb’s subject
valency, adapting the action to the communicative context. Based on how the
action relates to the subject and object, several types of voice are distinguished.
In modern Uzbek, the main types of verbal voice include the active (default)
voice, reflexive, causative, reciprocal, and passive, each formed with specific
derivational suffixes.
O. Bozorov, in his research, presents gradation within the voice category
based on various principles, particularly considering the degree of involvement
of the subject in the execution of the action. According to his analysis, the
following types of graduonomic sequences can be observed among voice forms:
a) By the degree of the subject’s involvement in the action:
active/reflexive → reciprocal → causative → passive
b) By the increasing number of external participants involved in the action:
reflexive → causative → reciprocal
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
70
c) By the degree of external influence on the action:
neutral (active, reflexive, passive) → cooperation or equality (reciprocal) →
subordination (causative)
d) By the decline in the clarity or definiteness of the action:
active → reflexive → reciprocal → causative → passive
This analysis illustrates how graduonomy can be traced across the voice
category in the Uzbek verb system, highlighting the nuanced relationships
between forms and their semantic-functional load [5.184].
In her doctoral dissertation, S. Mukhamedova examined the semantic
characteristics of various action verbs in the Uzbek language, including the
differences between semantic units (sememes). Since our research focuses
specifically on the phenomenon of graduonomy within action verbs, we find it
appropriate to include her classification [6.122].
According to her, within the semantic field of “covering an object”, verbs
such as yopmoq (to cover), burkamoq (to wrap), qoplamoq (to overlay), kiymoq
(to dress), yo‘rg‘aklamoq (to swaddle), ko‘mmoq (to bury), ilgaklamoq (to hook-
shut), tambalamoq (to barricade), qulflamoq (to lock), and zanjirlamoq (to
chain-shut) are used. Among them, verbs like ilgaklamoq, tambalamoq,
qulflamoq, and zanjirlamoq involve specific instruments (such as hooks, locks,
and chains), thus implying a stronger degree of the 'covering' meaning. She
emphasizes that these verbs also exhibit semantic differences, which are
illustrated in the following examples:
Ilgaklamoq – “to shut by hooking.”
Example: Ilgakni ilib berkitmoq – "She hooked the door shut."
Sentence: Eshikni ilgaklab kel – “Hook the door shut.”
Tambalamoq – “to barricade using a beam or bar.”
Example: Tambani qo‘yib berkitmoq – “We shut the door and blocked it
with a large beam.” (From Gʻafur Gʻulom)
Qulflamoq – “to lock using a padlock or key.”
Sentence: Mirzakarimboy locked the gate as he arrived. (From Oybek)
Zanjirlamoq – “to shut or secure using a chain.” Sentence: Hasanali laid
down in the guest room and chained the gate. (From Abdulla Qodiriy)
These examples illustrate graduated semantic distinctions within a single
semantic field, where the instrumentality and intensity of the action increase the
strength of the 'covering' meaning in each verb.
When discussing the grammatical nature of verbs, it is important to
emphasize that the verb is an independent part of speech, expressing action,
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
71
state, or process. Verbs are classified as an independent word class based on
several distinctive features.
In English linguistics, the concept of graduonymy has primarily been
explored from a semantic perspective, while its grammatical dimension remains
largely unexamined. In our study, which investigates gradation within the
grammatical categories and semantic groups of verbs in Uzbek and English, it is
essential to reference the current state of research on verb categorization in
English.
According to available linguistic descriptions of the English verb, the
primary grammatical categories include: the category of person and number, the
category of tense, the category of aspect, the category of voice, the category of
mood
Considering that only two types of voice are distinguished in English—
active and passive—and that no intermediate voice forms exist between them, it
becomes clear that gradation similar to what is observed in Uzbek is not present
in this category. Therefore, the voice category in English does not exhibit
internal gradation based on meaning, as it does in the Uzbek language [7.42].
The mood category is a grammatical category that reflects the verb’s
relation to reality as intended or perceived by the speaker. It represents the
morphological expression of modality, indicating whether the action or state
expressed by the verb is real or hypothetical. According to English linguists,
modern English has three main moods, which are:
The Indicative Mood – expresses factual statements
The Imperative Mood – expresses commands or requests
The Subjunctive Mood – expresses wishes, hypothetical or non-real actions
The indicative mood in English indicates that the action took place, is taking
place, or will take place based on real, factual conditions. Therefore, it is often
referred to as the factual or realis mood.
The imperative mood, by contrast, does not confirm the reality of the action,
but rather conveys instructions or requests.
The subjunctive mood expresses non-real, imagined, or hypothetical
actions. There are two main types of the subjunctive in English—typically
referred to as present subjunctive and past subjunctive, although their
distinctions relate more to mood than tense. Based on this, we can establish a
graduonomic scale of English verb moods progressing from realis to irrealis
states:
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
72
Indicative mood → Imperative mood → Subjunctive mood
This gradation can be illustrated through the verb save:
I saved some money. (Indicative)
Save the money! (Imperative)
God save you. (Subjunctive)
Graduonomy in verbal systems offers a valuable framework for
understanding how languages organize and express degrees of action and
modality. The comparative analysis of English and Uzbek reveals that while both
languages encode graduonomic distinctions, the linguistic tools employed are
different due to their structural typologies. These findings contribute to
contrastive linguistics, translation theory, and second language pedagogy by
highlighting the semantic depth behind verbal categories in both languages.
References:
1.
Ғуломов А.Ғ. Феъл. – Тошкент, 1954; Мадраҳимов И. Ҳозирги ўзбек
адабий тили. морфология. – Фарғона, 2008; Зикриллаев Ғ. Феълнинг шахс,
сон ва ҳурмат категориялари системаси. – Тошкент, 1990.
2.
Sirojiddinov, S. (2010). O‘zbek tilining grammatikasi: fe’lning
morfologiyasi. Toshkent: Fan.
3.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in
European languages. In Typology of Languages in Europe.
4.
Tillaeva, D. (2018). Fe’lning semantik kategoriyalari va ularning
darajalanishi. Tilshunoslik jurnali.
5.
Бозоров О Ўзбек тилида даражаланиш. ф.ф.доктори диссертация. Т.,
1997, 182-бет
6.
Муҳамедовна С.Х. Ўзбек тилида ҳаракат феълларининг семантик ва
валентлик хусусиятлари: Филол. фан. д-ри ... дисс. – Тошкент, 2007. – Б.122-
123
7.
Kirvalidzo N. Theoretical course of English grammar. – Tbilisi, 2013. –
Р.42.
8.
Бўронов Ж., Ҳошимов У. Исматуллаев Ҳ. Инглиз тили грамматикаси
(Морфология, синтаксис). – Б.154
