III. Conclusion
In the conclusion section I’d like to write brief in formations about lexical stylistic devices of the Uzbek and English languages with examples.
The stylistic device based on the principle of identification of two objects is called a metaphor. The SD based on the principle of substitution of one object for another is called metonymy and the SD based on contrary concepts is called irony.
There is an opinion that a metaphor is a productive way of building up new meanings and new words. Language can be called the “dictionary of faded metaphors”.
Examples of trite metaphors: The salt of life; a flight of imagination: the ladder of fame; to burn with passion (anger). The following metaphors enriched English phraseology; foot of a bed, leg of a chair, head of a nail, to be in the same boat, blind window, to fish for complements. Here Uzbek examples o`q yomg`iri, o`lim do`li buloq ko`zi.
Examples of genuine metaphors: The lips were tight little traps the whole space was a bowl of heat; this virus carried a gun; the dark swallowed him;
Mrs. Small`s eyes boiled with excitement; the words seemed to dance …. Xademay, ularning safari qoridi. Daryo oqar, vaqt oqar, umr oqar paydar-pay. Boshimdan kaptarlardekuchdi ming-minglab xauol. Gullar go`yo eshitar ta`zim.
SD based of the interaction of dictionary and contextual Logical Meanings.
a) The epithet is a stylistic device which is built on the interplay of two meanings of a word: emotive and logical. Eg. Eng. green old age.
Uzb. Pokiza yoshlik.
b) Oxymoron joins two antonymous words into one syntagm, most frequently attribute or adverbial, less frequently of other patterns.
Ex: Eng. Shouted silently
Uzb. Ishbilarmon dangasa.
SD. Based on the interaction of lexical and emotive meaning. The interplay between the logical and nominal meanings of a word is called antonomasia
Ex: Eng. Lord Nobody; Miss Careless
Uzb. Tolmas, qo`rqmas.
Eng. The Iror Lady (M.Tcatcher, the former Prime Minister of G.B)
Uzb. Atala Maxsum Qovoq Devona.
SD of descriptive character. Sometimes for a specialreason one of the features of the thing is made the most essential, describes some detail and intensifies it.
Periphrasis is the nomination of an object or action through exhibiting certain features of this object or action. Such periphrasis is based on one of the original features of the object.
Ex: Eng. He showed satisfaction as he took possession of his well-earned reward; instead of “He grinned as he” pocketed the coin.
Uzb. Onasini chizgan chizig`idan chiqmaydi. “Onasini aytganini bajaradi”o`rniga
In conclusion I’d like to say that in many cases lexical E.M. and SD of both languages are similar in many cases.
1. I.R. Galperin. Stylistics. M. “Higher school” 1977.
2. V.A. Kukharenko.A Book of Practice in Stylistics. M.”Высшаяшкола”1987
3. V.A. Kukharenko. Seminar in style. M. 1971
4. I.V. Arnold. The English Word. M. 1973.
5. L.T. Boboxonova, Ingliz tili stilistikasi.
6. I.Mukarramov. Xozirgi o`zbek audacity tilining ilmiy stili. T.Fan. 1984.
7. I.Toshaliev. O`zbek tili stilistikasi. T. Tash.G.U. 1988.
8. U.E. Qilichev. O`zbek tilining praktik stilistikasi T.O`qituvchi. 1985.
9. Х. Қ. Қаршибоев Битирув малакавий ишларни бажариш ва ҳимоя қилишга доир услубий кўрсатмалар. Гулистон 2003.
10. Турсунов, Мухторов Ш, Раҳматуллаев. Ҳозирги ўзбек адабий тили. Т. “Ўзбекистон”. 1992. 216 б
11. E. Nida. Morphology University of Michigan. Press. 1976.
12. Т.М. Беляева «Вопросы английского языка в синхронии и диахронии». Л. 1967. стр. 89.
13. Мюллер. В.К. «Англо – Русский словарь» М. 1962.
14. The World Book Encyclopedia. USA. 1994. №. G.G. Volumep/ 905/
15. М. Эшниёзова Қўшма сўз Микросинтагматик муносататига доир. 2004. №1 24-26 бб
16. Internet. Khan M.A. Liggt. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. www.amjbot.org. 2003. № 90 р
17. Адмони В. Г. Типологня тфедложення.— В сб.: Исследованяя по обшсй кюрнн грамматики. М., 1968.
18. Азнаурова Э. С. Очерки по стилистике слова. Ташкент, 3973. Арнольд И. В. Стилистика современного английского язьша. Л., 1973.
19. Арутюноеа Н. Д. О синтаксических типах художественной прозьг.— В сб-: Обшее и романское язукознание. М., Изд. МГУ, 1972.
20. Арутюнова Н. Д. Некоторне типн дналогических реакций н «почему»-репликн в русском язьше. «Филологические науки», 1970, № 3.
21. Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смьюл. М., 1976-
Ахманова 0. С. О стилистической дифференциации слов. «Сборнмк статей по язикознанию». М., Изд. МГУ, 1958.
22. Ахманоеа 0. С. Словарь лингвнстических терминов. М., 1966.
Ашурова Д. У. Лингвистическая природа художественного сравнення. АКД. М., 1970.
23. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика. М., .1961,
24. Будаеов Р. А. В зашнту понятия «стиль художественной литературн». «Вестник МГУ», 1962, №4.
25. Будагов Р. А. В. И. Ленин о научном стиле язьша. «Филологическиенаукн», 1970, № 1.
[1]Riffaterre, M. The Stylistic Function. Proceedings of the 9-th International Congress of Linguists, The Hague, 1964, p.p. 316-317.
[2]Chatman, Seymour. Stylistics; Quantitative and Qualitative, 1967, V. 1, p.30
[3]Hill, Archibald A. Poetry and Stylistics.—in; “Essays in Literary Linguistics”, p.54
[4]Winter, Werner. Styles as Dialects. Proceeding of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, p.324.
[5]See “Style in Language”, ed. By T. Sebeok. N. Y., 1960, p.427.