##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Teaching and learning a foreign language becoming vitally important, since knowing the language is knowing people. With this reason, many scholars and researchers are trying to investigate some similarities and differences between languages. The purpose of this article is to study litotes in both English and Uzbek languages. Litotes is a linguistic device that involves the use of negation to express an idea in a double negative or understatement. This study aims to analyze the use of litotes in English and Uzbek languages from linguapragmatic and linguological perspectives. Moreover, this article analyzes the use of litotes in both languages, examining its functions and subtypes. The findings suggest that while there are similarities between the two languages, there are also significant differences in how litotes is used and perceived. In order to reveal unities and diversities, some methods such as observation and comparison are utilized. Linguistically, the study found that litotes operates differently in each language. In English, litotes often involves the use of double negatives to express an affirmation, while in Uzbek, however, litotes often involves understatement without double negatives. Some example given in this article is taken from literature, prose and poetry to identify it.
Keywords
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
- Ahn. T. T., Study of understatements in editorials in English and Vietnamese newspapers:
- dis. – 2010. 26 pp.
- Apresyan Y. D., Pragmatic information for the explanatory dictionary //Pragmatics and
- problems of intensionality. – The Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the
- USSR. – Moscow: IVAN USSR. – 1988. 766 pp.
- Arnold I.V. Stylistics. Modern English. Textbook for universities / 10th edition M.: Flint:
- Science, 2010, - 384 pp.
- Cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/litotes
- Djabbarova Z. R., Semantic and stylistic characteristics of litota. Electronic journal of actual
- problems of modern science, education and training. April, 2021-VIII. ISSN 2181-9750. 103
- pp.
- Esenova K., Pragmalinguistic studies in linguistics. – 2017.111 pp.
- Fahnestock J., Rhetorical Figures in Science, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999. 248
- pp.
- Hoffmann M.E., Negatio Contrarii: A Study of Latin Litotes, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1987. 290
- pp.
- Karimova, O. (2024). Comparative study of SLA: effects of early exposure, education, and
- psychology on sixth-graders. Tamaddun Nuri Jurnali, 12(63), 28-30.
- Klyuev E.V., Rhetoric. Invention. Disposition. Elocution. M., 2001. 271 pp.
- Kukharenko V.A., A Book of Practice in Stylistics. – Вінниця: «Нова книга», 2003. – 160
- pp.
- Safarov Sh., Pragmalinguistics. Tashkent: National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan, 2008. 286
- pp.
- Sultonsaidova S., Sharipova O‘., O‘zbek tili stilistikasi. (o‘quv qo‘llanma) – Toshkent 2009.
- pp.
- Скребнев, Ю.М., Очерк теории стилистики / Ю.М. Скребнев. – Горький, 1975. – 175 pp.
- Madalov, N. E. (2020). Linguopsychological changes in an adult when learning a foreign
- language. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 10(90), 417-421.
- Madalov, N. E. (2019). Types of transformations in the process of translation. In Наука и
- инновации-современные концепции (pp. 111-115).
- Madalov, N. E., & Abduvaitov, A. S. (2019). Euphemisms in English and their Russian
- equivalents. In Наука и инновации-современные концепции (pp. 59-61).