##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
This study provides a comparative analysis of subordinating conjunctions in the English and Uzbek languages, focusing on their structure, function, and usage. The research employs a qualitative content analysis approach, utilizing data from grammar books, academic articles, and online language resources. These methods allowed for a systematic and detailed examination of the subordinating conjunctions in both English and Uzbek languages. The findings reveal both similarities and differences between the subordinating conjunctions in English and Uzbek, including variations in structure and specific conjunctions used to convey relationships between clauses. These insights have implications for comparative linguistics, language teaching, and translation, as understanding the nuances of subordinating conjunctions in both languages is essential for accurate communication and effective language learning. The results highlight both the similarities and differences between the two languages, offering valuable insights for language learners, teachers, translators, and linguists. The discussion of these implications not only deepens our understanding of the linguistic features in question but also highlights potential directions for future research.
Keywords
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
- Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge. Pp. 352
- Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course.
- Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Pp. 854
- Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 516.
- Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGrawHill. Pp.370.
- Eshonqulov, D. (2016). Uzbek grammar for beginners. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
- Pp. 249
- Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman. Pp. 374
- Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
- Health Research, 15(9). Pp. 1288.
- Karimova, O. (2024). Comparative study of SLA: effects of early exposure, education, and psychology
- on sixth-graders. Tamaddun Nuri Jurnali, 12(63), 28-30.
- Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of
- Michigan Press. Pp.160.
- Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press. Pp.304
- Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
- Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2). Pp. 260.
- Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Routledge. Pp.376.
- Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English
- language. Longman. Pp.1841.
- Rakhimov, S. (2015). Uzbek-English/English-Uzbek dictionary and phrasebook: Romanized.
- Hippocrene Books. Pp204.
- Swan, M., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2001). Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other
- problems. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 362
- Thompson, G. (2013). Introducing functional grammar. Routledge. Pp.328.
- 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 инновациисовременные 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).