SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
83
STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF ELLIPTICAL
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Latofat Zokir kizi Raximdjanova
E-mail: latofat0507@gmail.com
Student of master's degree University of Exact and Social sciences
+998998421243
ORCID: 0009-0004-6109-9718
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13734168
Abstract
Elliptical phraseological units are a significant linguistic
phenomenon in both English and Uzbek languages. These units reflect not only
the structural and semantic peculiarities of the languages but also emdiv
cultural and cognitive aspects. This paper examines the structural and semantic
features of elliptical phraseological units in English and Uzbek, focusing on their
similarities and differences. The study aims to provide a comparative analysis of
these units, shedding light on how ellipsis functions within the phraseological
systems of these two languages.
Key Words:
Ellipsis, Phraseological Units, English Language, Uzbek
Language, Structural Features, Semantic Features,
Introduction
Ellipsis, as a linguistic device, plays a crucial role in language
economy, allowing speakers to convey more meaning with fewer words. In
phraseological units, ellipsis often enhances expressiveness, adding layers of
meaning that would be lost in more explicit forms. This phenomenon is
prevalent in both English and Uzbek, where elliptical structures contribute to
the richness and diversity of idiomatic expressions. The present study explores
the structural and semantic characteristics of elliptical phraseological units in
English and Uzbek, analyzing how these units reflect the linguistic and cultural
context of each language.
Structural Features of Elliptical Phraseological Units
Elliptical
phraseological units in both English and Uzbek languages often involve the
omission of words or phrases that are understood from the context. This
omission creates a more compact and efficient expression, which can be
particularly impactful in conveying complex ideas or emotions.
In English, elliptical phraseological units frequently omit verbs or subjects,
relying on the listener or reader to infer the missing elements. For example, the
phrase "The more, the merrier" omits the explanatory elements that would
otherwise clarify the meaning, such as "the more people there are, the merrier
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
84
the situation becomes." This structure not only shortens the phrase but also
enhances its rhetorical effect, making it more memorable and impactful[1].
Similarly, in Uzbek, elliptical phraseological units often omit verbs or entire
clauses, relying on cultural knowledge and contextual understanding to fill in the
gaps. The phrase "Ko‘p ko‘rganning oti ko‘rinmas" (literally "the horse of the one
who sees much is not seen") omits the verb "is," yet the meaning remains clear
due to the cultural context in which the phrase is used[2]. This omission reflects
the Uzbek linguistic preference for brevity and the use of idiomatic expressions
to convey wisdom or advice.
Semantic Features of Elliptical Phraseological Units
The semantic richness of
elliptical phraseological units is closely tied to their structural features. The
omission of certain elements often concentrates meaning, making the remaining
components carry a heavier semantic load. This concentration of meaning can
lead to more powerful and nuanced expressions, capable of conveying both
literal and figurative meanings[3].
In English, elliptical phraseological units often use omission to create paradoxes
or ironic statements. The phrase "Less is more" omits the explanatory reasoning
behind the statement, leaving the listener to ponder the deeper implications.
This elliptical structure not only makes the phrase more concise but also more
thought-provoking, encouraging the listener to engage with the underlying
message.
In Uzbek, the semantic impact of elliptical phraseological units is often linked to
cultural wisdom and social norms. For example, the phrase "Og'izdan olma!"
(literally "Don't take it from the mouth") omits the full explanation, yet the
implied meaning—that one should not take words too literally—is clear to
native speakers. This ellipsis reflects the cultural emphasis on interpreting
language with caution, particularly in social interactions[3].
Comparative Analysis
A comparative analysis of elliptical phraseological units
in English and Uzbek reveals both similarities and differences in how these
structures are used and understood. Both languages use ellipsis to achieve
brevity and emphasis, yet the specific ways in which ellipsis is employed can
vary depending on the linguistic and cultural context.
In English, elliptical phraseological units often rely on syntactic parallelism and
rhythm to enhance their rhetorical effect. The phrase "Out of sight, out of mind"
uses ellipsis to omit the conjunction and the verb, creating a parallel structure
that is both catchy and easy to remember. This type of ellipsis is common in
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
85
English idioms and proverbs, where the focus is on creating a memorable and
rhetorically effective statement[4].
Table 1: Comparative Features of Elliptical Phraseological Units in English
and Uzbek
Feature
English
Examples
Uzbek Examples Analysis
Omitted
Element
Verb ("Less is
more")
Verb
("Ko‘p
ko‘rganning
oti
ko‘rinmas")
Both languages often omit
verbs to create a more
concise
and
impactful
expression.
Cultural
Context
Dependence
"When
in
Rome, [do as
the Romans
do]"
"Tog‘ bilan tog‘
uchrashmasa ham,
insonlar
uchrashadi"
Uzbek phrases often rely on
cultural
knowledge
for
interpretation, while English
phrases focus on universal
truths.
Syntactic
Parallelism
"Out of sight,
out of mind"
"Og'izdan olma!"
English phrases often use
parallel
structures
to
enhance memorability, while
Uzbek phrases rely on
contextual understanding.
Semantic
Density
"Less is more" "Og'izdan olma!"
Elliptical structures in both
languages enhance semantic
density,
making
the
expressions more powerful.
In contrast, Uzbek elliptical phraseological units frequently omit elements that
are culturally understood, such as specific actions or outcomes. The phrase "Tog‘
bilan tog‘ uchrashmasa ham, insonlar uchrashadi" (literally "Even if mountains
don't meet, people do") omits the concluding reasoning, relying on the listener's
cultural knowledge to understand the implied meaning. This reliance on cultural
context is a key feature of Uzbek ellipsis, where the shared values and norms of
the community play a crucial role in interpreting the expression.
Conclusion
Elliptical phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages
demonstrate the intricate relationship between structure, semantics, and
culture. While both languages use ellipsis to enhance expressiveness and
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
86
efficiency, the specific forms and functions of these units reflect the unique
linguistic and cultural contexts in which they are used. Understanding these
differences and similarities not only enriches our knowledge of phraseology in
these languages but also provides insights into the broader cognitive and
cultural processes that shape language use.
This study highlights the importance of considering both structural and
semantic aspects when analyzing elliptical phraseological units. Future research
could further explore the pragmatic functions of ellipsis in these languages, as
well as the role of cultural factors in shaping the use of ellipsis in phraseology.
By examining these units through a comparative lens, we can gain a deeper
understanding of how language functions as a tool for both communication and
cultural expression.
References:
1.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.).
Blackwell Publishing.
2.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni
di Semantica.
3.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
4.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward
Arnold.
5.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
6.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago
Press.
7.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1 & 2). Cambridge University Press.
8.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. William Morrow and Company.
9.
Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in General Linguistics (C. Bally & A.
Sechehaye, Eds.; R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth.
10.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Harvard University Press.
