Conversion as one of the ways to form grammatical homonymy in the Crimean Tatar language

Abliametova Susanna Marlenovna Lecturer, Department of Crimean Tatar and Turkish Language Studies at Crimean University of Engineering and Teaching 295000, Russia, respublika Krym, g. Simferopol', per. Uchebnyi, 8 sudilim@ukr.net Other publications by this author

Sattarova Zera Mambetovna PhD in Philology Associate professor, Department of Crimean Tatar and Turkish Linguistics, Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University 295000, Russia, respublika Krym, g. Simferopol', per. Uchebnyi, 8 sattarova.zera@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The relevance of the work is related to the fact that the concept of meaning covers not only lexical, but also grammatical meanings, the difference in grammatical meanings of words should be considered as important as the difference in lexical meanings in homonymy. Homonymy can be characterized by one or both of these features.

The aims and objectives of the study are to consider and analyze conversion as one of the ways to form grammatical homonymy in the Crimean Tatar language.

Special attention to the grammatical method of word formation, namely the transition of words from one part of speech to another in the Turkic languages is noted in the works of A.N. Kononov, N.K. Dmitriev, B. Oruzbayeva, S.V. Sevortyan, and others. In the works, the term "conversion" is used to denote the regular and irregular transition of words to other parts of speech.

Conversion is the formation of a new word by translating a given word base into another inflection paradigm.

Using the example of words such as tanysh I – "familiar" and tanysh II – "meet"; quresh I – "fight" and quresh II – "fight", we can see that as a result of the conversion, the semantic connections of the main grammatical meanings in a broad sense are violated, and each of these words falls into different grammatical structures. classes: Tanysh, quresh, like verbs, conjugate, and nouns like tanysh, quresh, incline. As a result, the "behavior" of such words in the language turns out to be different. Words are distributed in different parts of speech and thus become different homonymous words (in grammatical meaning).

The regular use of words of this part of speech as words of another part of speech is their natural property, and not one of their main roles. N.A. Baskakov adheres to such a point of view on the nature of the Turkic parts of speech and on the possibility of their transformation, which does not recognize the transition of one part of speech to another, not only in conversion, but and in word-forming forms ^{[1, pp. 187-203, 214-216, 223]}.

N.K. Dmitriev qualifies conversion as a natural phenomenon of the transition from one part of speech to another, in which two functioning words such as adjective – noun, noun – adjective arise, but, like N.A. Baskakov, he attributes such a hybrid only to any one part of speech solely based on its etymology, although it recognizes the need to take into account its values and functions ^{[2, p. 81]}. Thus, analyzing the multifunctional words of the Crimean Tatar kart – "old" and kart – "old man", N.K. Dmitriev notes that they "are originally adjectives, as they indicate the sign of the subject; syntactically, they can act as adjectives and nouns: compare expressions such as kart adam – "the old man" and kjart Keldi – "the old man has come." Thus, according to the peculiarities of semantic and syntactic characteristics (morphological features are absent here) the word kart could be called the conditional term "adjective-noun".

Therefore, conversion is most often considered as a grammatical phenomenon.: as a regular use of a word in a series of two or three parts of speech, regardless of its lexical and grammatical affiliation.

Thus, Yu.A. Zhluktenko argues that the act of forming a new word by conversion is the use of the base of the original word to form another word in a different grammatical combination typical of another part of speech ^{[3, p. 81]}.

The Crimean Tatar language is characterized by grammatical homonyms formed by substantiating adjectives, adverbializing nouns, subjectivizing participles, and transferring basic or significant words to the category of official ones. The main pattern of homonymy of words in different parts of speech is that the transition of words from one part of speech to another is associated with a shortening of the paradigm or the isolation of the word form from the paradigm. When changing words into immutable words, the paradigm shrinks and narrows. Homonyms referring to one or different parts of speech express different meanings in terms of their paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects. It should also be noted that grammatical homonyms are not distinguished in dictionaries and are homonyms only by the difference in grammatical meanings.

In the Crimean Tatar language, a number of nouns are formed as a result of the substantiation of adjectives: kok – "blue" and kok – "sky", yash – "young" and yash - "young man", ajji – "bitter, caustic". and ajji – "burning, pain", asyl – "initial" and asyl - "essence", chil – "spotted" and chil - "partridge".

In the examples given, the first members of homonymic pairs have the category of number and case, while the second members of homonymic pairs do not. Also, each of the members of homonymous pairs has its own word-formation series, which differ from each other. For example, kok – "blue", kokche – "bluish", whooping cough – "blue". The lexeme kok – "sky" does not accept these word-forming suffixes, but it has its own means of word production, for example, koksel - "heavenly". Qart – "old", qartlyk – "old age", qartaymak – "grow old" and qart – "old man" of qartan, qartanai – "grandmother", qartbaba – "grandfather".

In all the examples given, the meaning of the adjective is broader than the meaning of the noun, which represents a very narrow aspect of the semantics of the original word. Therefore, there is a transition from an adjective to a noun, and not vice versa.

As a result of the concretization and individualization of the general concept, words that are commonly called homogeneous objects begin to be used for certain objects, i.e. they become their proper names. Thus, the same word can be recognized and used both as a common noun and as a proper name.

Some linguists believe that proper nouns form homophones as a result of substantiation. For example, N.M. Shansky writes, "homophones can be simultaneously homonymous in nature, like Novel – novel, Eagle – eagle, and homoform type fruit – raft, carry – vesti" ^{[4, pp. 43-44]}.

K.A. Allendorf believes that homonyms can also be words that pass from the lexical series of common names to a number of proper names and vice versa, from a number of proper names to common names. This phenomenon is associated with the metaphorical transmission of words, therefore they are considered as semantic homonyms ^{[5, p. 76]}.

As a result of the individualization of common names through metaphor and metonymy, words with different meanings and functions are formed. Coinciding in phonetic composition, such words form a homonymy. However, they look different on the letter – they have different spelling.

A proper name is not an ordinary word; it is not explained or translated. As a result, words such as arslan – "lion" and Arslan – "proper name", elmaz – "diamond" and Elmaz – "proper name", nazly – "capricious" and Nazly – "proper name", sani – "second" and Sani – "proper name", etc. appeared. They are considered grammatical homophones.

In the Crimean Tatar language, a significant number of adjectives are formed as a result of adjectivization. Adjectives include words and word forms of all parts of speech, but their productivity varies.

In Turkology, some linguists distinguish adjectives formed as a result of the adjectivization of nouns (for example, kumyush – "silver" and kumyush – "silver", mermer – "marble" and mermer – "marble"), yun – "wool" and yun – "woolen", karakul – "karakul" and karakul – "karakul" (i.e., any noun denoting a material), art – "backside" and art – "backside", shimal – "north" and shimal – "northern", kharaman – "hero" and kharaman – "bold", etc.) denote "created, consisting of this material (mermer basamaklar – "marble steps", etc.) or characterized by this spatial relationship (shimal rayon – "northern districts", art yaktan – "from the back", etc.) or qualities, properties (batyr yigitler – "brave fellows", etc.), which are expressed in the initial basis."

However, S.A. Gochiyaeva is right, noting that "such determinative combinations (kumyush kashyk) are not related to homonymy in the field of adjectives and nouns for the simple reason that the first components do not express attributive relations, i.e. they do not express a feature of the subject, but are recognized as subject concepts" ^{[6, p. 36]}.

The transitions of nouns into adjectives in the Crimean Tatar language can be regular and irregular.

In some cases, there is a transition of numerals into adjectives, for example: bir – "one" (bir, eki, uch, ... – "one, two, three, ...") and bir – "the same, common". (olar ekisi de beer – "they are both the same"), birindzhi – "the first" and birindzhi – "the original").

The adjectives of the above words are marked in dictionaries. The presence of the meaning of adjectives in some numerals is also a generally recognized fact, therefore, these words are considered by us as adjectives formed from numerals by conversion.

Regarding the formation of adverbs as a result of adverbialization of nouns (in particular, indirect noun forms), S.A. Beglyarova notes that: The tendency in adverbialization of nouns is largely predetermined by the presence in this part of speech of words with spatial and temporal meanings, which often have a dual character, revealing the features of the noun or adverb by their "behavior" in speech ^{[7, p. 11]}.

Here are examples of adverbs of time formed by converting from indirect forms of nouns: bashta – "in the head" and bashta – "at the beginning", byshtan – "from the head" and bashtan – "at first".

In the Crimean Tatar language, a large number of adverbs are formed by adverbializing adjectives, it is not uncommon for adjectives to turn into both adverbs and nouns, for example: yaryk – "light" (auditorium balaban ve yaryk ediler – "the audience was large and bright"), yaryk – "light" (kozume bearden yaryk Urdy – "the light hit my eyes sharply") and yaryk – "it's light" (goat yarygynen baryp chykmak kerek – "we need to get there before dark"), suvuk –"cold" (suvuk el ese –"the cold wind blows"), suvuk –"cold" (suvuk alyshmak –"get used to the cold") and suvuk – "cold" (musafirlerni suvuk qarshiladılar – "the guests were greeted coldly"), etc. .

In some cases, only adverbs are formed from adjectives, for example: yahshy – "good" and yahshy – "good", toly – "full" and toly – "full", airy– "separate" and airy – "separate" (they differ in a small semantic connection, stress and refer to different parts of speech, that is, they are grammatical homonyms).

The following atypical case is interesting; it is formed according to the "name + indication of the dative case" model: birge –, depending on its function, acts either as a numeral in the meaning of "one", or as an adverb in the meaning of "together". Nothing but the function makes it possible to unambiguously understand both the lexical content of these words and their categorical affiliation.

It is easy to see that we are dealing with qualitatively different words, since, firstly, the adverb has stress, but the postposition and particle do not, secondly, the adverb is an independent member of the sentence, and the postposition and particle are only official words, thirdly, they all relate to different parts of speech.. Therefore, the words son – "after" (adverb) and son – "same" (postposition) or bashkaa – "separately, separately" (adverb) and bashkaa – "excluding, except" (postposition), etc. should be qualified as homonyms.

Homonyms that have arisen on the basis of the transition of independent words into official ones differ significantly from traditional homonymy. If with traditional homonymy (for example, with substantiation) a word does not lose its main (nominative) function in the process of change, then when it passes into a postposition or particle, it gradually loses its lexical isolation and begins to function as a means of expressing logical and grammatical relations between individual subjects of thought ^{[8, p. 9]}.

The peculiarities of the Turkic languages confirm that the process of homonymization is a historical phenomenon with deep roots. The history of the parts of speech of the Turkic languages is connected with the history of primary homonyms. In Turkic languages, homonyms can refer to different parts of speech, especially to nominal and verbal forms, for example: toi- –get full" and toi – "feast", ich - "drink" and ich – "inside", az – "lose weight" and az - "little", koch- – "to wander, to move" and koch – "nomad", shish- –to swell" and shish – "tumor" and a number of others.

The semantic analysis of verbal and nominal roots suggests that in ancient times in the Turkic languages, one word could denote both an object at rest (as a noun) and an object in motion, or the movement or action of the object itself (as a verb).

Homonyms that have not changed their morphological and phonetic composition, but have passed from one part of speech to another, are called differently in Turkology, for example, E.V. Sevortyan calls them verb-nominal, primary bases ^{[9; 365]}, and the Kazakh linguist K. Akhanov – root homonyms (tubokir homonymder) ^{[10, p. 110]}. Some linguists believe that they arose as a result of conversion ^{[11, p. 18]}.

There is still no consensus in linguistics about the origin of primary homonyms. Thus, A.A. Yuldashev considers the emergence of primary homonyms as a result of the desire to think differently, metaphorically ^{[12; 38]}, N.A. Baskakov, and I.A. Batmanov, P.M. Melioransky consider homonymy in the cases of that - –get saturated" and that – "feast" and under. as an illustration of the surviving stage of language development ^{[1, p. 178; 12; 7; 13, p. 22]}. E.V. Sevortyan considers such facts to be one of the ancient ways of word formation in the Turkic languages, the result of the phenomenon of syncretism ^{[14, pp. 359-427]}; and other researchers indicate that this method of word formation is one of the oldest in the Turkic languages ^{[15, pp. 263-265]}. Some foreign Turkologists admit two possibilities of matching a name and a verb into the same word ^{[16, p. 171; 17, p. 19]}.

The analysis of the stated facts allows us to draw the following conclusions. Homonymous words (verb-name, verb-adjective, verb-adverb), historically dating back to the same root, are called differently in the scientific literature: "verb-nominal primary bases", "homonyms resulting from conversion", "root homonyms (tubokir homonymder)", "primary homonyms". We believe that the most correct name is proposed by B.M. Yunusaliev – "primary homonyms" (this term is fixed in the scientific literature) ^{[9, p. 110; 18, p. 63]}.

The main role in the emergence of primary homonyms is played by the historical development of verbs of the SG structure ^{[19, p. 79]}. According to some researchers, at the first stages of language development, the name of an object and its movement were conveyed in one word ^{[20, p. 22]}. The origin of primary homonyms from a single root is one of the historical sources of word formation in the Turkic languages.

Consideration of grammatical homonyms in the modern Crimean Tatar language, including substantiation, the transition of common names into proper names, adjectivation, adverbialization, the transition of semantic words into official ones, primary homonymy indicates the complex nature of the processes occurring during the formation of vocabulary and grammar of the modern Crimean Tatar language. Syntactic and morphological factors that resolve and formalize syntactic changes form grammatical homonyms. In this process, the unity of action of all sides of the language is manifested, their mutual connection and interdependence. Familiarity with the phenomenon of grammatical homonymy confirms the need for a more detailed theoretical and practical study of language teaching.

Grammatical homonymy is more abstract than lexical homonymy. If lexical homonyms are always represented by separate words – carriers of a certain real content, then grammatical homonymy can be expressed not only in the identity of whole word forms, as in all the examples given, but also in the identity of grammatical formants only, as well as in the identity of grammatical constructions or models.

Thus, the essence of grammatical homonymy is that they serve as homonyms only due to the coincidence of grammatical forms and are formed as a result of conversion.