Phatics - Actual Problems of Linguistics Uzbek Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jsshr.vol4iss01pp15-18Abstract
The article deals with the ontological multifunctional (multidimensional) language and is closely related its phatic function. Methodology: One of the absolutely categorical (flat) demands of the dialectical method of research is the approach to the subject as a multifaceted, complex, multi-functional (multifunctional) and objective investigation. Results: In the Uzbek language, communicative dialogue has also elements of Phatic. Usually during the greeting, a simple exchange of information and farewell often traced application of Phatic words. In addition to communicating Phatic lexical factor, operates extra-linguistic and cultural factors of language. Conclusion: It is shown that after the 60s of the twentieth century the phatic function of language, itself phatic, essence and purpose of phatic communication, phatic speech genres have been comprehensively studied in the west (especially in Russian) philologies, however, these questions in the Uzbek science are waiting to be explored.References
Bilinsky, Y. 1981. Expanding the Use of Russian or Russification? Some Critical Thoughts on Russian As a Lingua Franca and the" Language of Friendship and Cooperation of the Peoples of the USSR". The Russian Review, 40(3), 317-332.
Collin, R. O. 2011. Revolutionary scripts: The politics of writing systems. Culture and Language (Sprache, Mehrsprachigkeit und sozialer Wandel, Band 12), 29-67.
Cook, V. J. 1985. Language functions, social factors, and second language learning and teaching. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23(1-4), 177-198.
English, F., & Marr, T. 2015. Why do linguistics?: reflective linguistics and the study of language. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fazilov, E. 1969. Sjoberg, AF: Uzbek Structural Grammar (Book Review). Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 64(1), 66.
Khoutyz, I. 2013. Globalisation and English as a Lingua Franca: Does the Future Promise Culturally Homogenous or Inimitable Societies?. In Inculturalism: Meaning and Identity (1-13). Brill.
Krippes, K. 1994. Russian code-switching in colloquial Uzbek, Kazakh and Kyrgyz. General linguistics, 34(3), 139.
Ornstein, J. 1959. Soviet language policy: Theory and practice. The Slavic and East European Journal, 3(1), 1-24.
Radwanska-Williams, J. 2009. Language Contact and Language Learning in a Multicultural Setting: A Case Study of an Indian Family in Macao. Intercultural Communication Studies, 18(2), 115.
Ratcliffe, R. R. 2005. Bukhara Arabic: a metatypized dialect of Arabic in Cental Asia. Csató et al, 141-59.
Zabrodskaja, A. 2006. Russian-Estonian code-switching among young Estonian Russians: developing a mixed linguistic identity.
Zharkynbekova, S., Aimoldina, A., & Akynova, D. 2015. Cultural and language self-identification of ethnic minority groups in Kazakhstan. Sociolinguistic Studies, 9(2/3), 289.
