Syntactic Relations Between Oxymoronic Constructions

Аннотация

This article explores the syntactic and semantic relations underlying oxymoronic constructions in Uzbek literary and colloquial discourse. While oxymoron is traditionally treated as a stylistic figure based on semantic contradiction, this study demonstrates that its internal structure is governed by systematic syntactic connections and valency patterns. Drawing upon examples from contemporary Uzbek literature, the article identifies five major types of syntactic relations within oxymoronic expressions: predicative, attributive, objective, circumstantial, and oppositive. Through detailed linguistic analysis, it is shown that despite their paradoxical semantics, oxymorons preserve grammatical coherence and reveal subtle mechanisms of expressivity, emotional intensity, and cultural coding. The findings affirm that oxymoron, as a syntactic phenomenon, not only enhances stylistic effect but also reflects the richness of Uzbek conceptual and communicative frameworks. Keywords: Oxymoron, syntactic relation, semantic contradiction, Uzbek language, stylistic figure, predicative relation, attributive structure, objective construction, apposition, linguistic valency, expressivity, literary syntax. Introduction: Language functions not only as a tool for Language, as a means of communication, is structurally communication but also as a system of expressive formed in most cases through the combination of possibilities. Its structural organization often depends elements – namely, on the basis of syntactic on the syntactic connection of components— connections and syntactic relations. These two manifesting as both grammatical and semantic phenomena are closely interconnected: where there is relations. While syntactic connections refer to formal a syntactic connection, there is a syntactic relation, and grammatical linkages, syntactic relations describe the vice versa (with the exception of certain sentence functional and semantic roles of words in utterance. elements such as parentheticals and interjections, This distinction becomes especially significant in the which do not directly participate in syntactic linkage analysis of expressive stylistic figures such as but influence the overall meaning of the sentence). oxymoron, which, despite its internal semantic However, this close connection should not lead to the opposition, follows recognizable syntactic patterns. assumption that syntactic connection and syntactic relation are one and the same phenomenon – they are, In Uzbek literature and speech, oxymoronic in fact, distinct. expressions are widely used to intensify emotional content and articulate complex philosophical or As noted above, a syntactic connection refers to the psychological states. However, their structural nature grammatical linkage between components of a remains underexplored in terms of syntactic theory. syntactic construction. In contrast, a syntactic relation This article seeks to fill that gap by classifying and refers to the grammatical meaning and functional roles analyzing oxymorons according to their syntactic of words within phrases and sentences, as well as the relations. The study is grounded in literary and relationships between sentences in discourse. For colloquial examples, demonstrating how seemingly example, in the phrases maktabga bormoq (“to go to contradictory lexemes can interact through regular school”) and ukamga olmoq (“to take for my younger grammatical mechanisms while producing brother”), the syntactic connection is identical: in both extraordinary stylistic effects. cases, the components are connected using the same grammatical marker – the dative case suffix -ga. The main part American Journal Of Philological Sciences 381 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN – 2771-2273) However, the syntactic relations differ: in the first arrangement may be elliptical or abbreviated, a example, the relation is locative (relational), expressing predicative semantic structure emerges, anchoring the a place, while in the second, it is object-oriented utterance in a subject–predicate framework. (complementary), denoting the recipient of an action. 2. Attributive Relation. This type of semantic In discourse, we may observe the interaction of connection occurs between a quality and an object, and lexemes that are connected in an unusual manner, is expressed through a modifier – modified despite being semantically incompatible. In such (determiner–determinate) relationship. For example: instances, the syntactic harmony between the Havo sovuq. Osmonda zahardek achchiq qor uchqunlari elements is disrupted. Word combinations formed in erinchoq kezadi. Ko‘chalarni oynadek muz bosgan, this way are often distinguished by their emotional mashinalar emaklagandek qo‘rqa-pisa imillaydi. Nafas intensity and expressiveness, as the speaker or author olsang, og‘zinga sovuq olov kiritayotgandek bo‘g‘zingni conveys their intended meaning using lexemes that do