THE CATEGORY OF CASE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Ushbu maqolada ingliz tilida kelishik shakli ko‘rsatib beriladi, uning komponentlari esa kelishiklarning ma‘nosi va vazifalari ustida ko‘p yillar ishlagan tilshunos olimlar fikriga tayanib keltiriladi. Bu tilda kelishik kategoriyasi turli tilshunoslar tomonidan turlicha talqin qilingan.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15070963

THE CATEGORY OF CASE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE Parvina Khotamova Samarkand state institute of foreign languages Associate professor of the department of English Philology

Abstract: this article demonstrates the form of case in English language and its components are also given from linguistic scholars who worked for many years in terms of meaning and functions of cases. In this language, the category of case has been interpreted differently by different linguists. Keywords: case, morphology, colloquial speech, independent, possessiveness.

In English, the case form and its components are also known to have long been the focus of attention of linguists in terms of their meaning and functions. In this language, the category of case has been interpreted by different linguists in different ways. In particular, in this regard, scientific research by linguists such as M.Deutschbein, Ch.Fillmore their research ranged from the conclusion that there is no English language categories of case, to the point of saying that the category of case seems infinite in meaning [1, 2]. Indeed, the issue of the form of case in this language is problematic. To this day, it causes a number of discussions between proponents of inflectional and non-inflectional morphology. The reason for the discussions between them is the different approach to this grammatical category. In particular, in English, the existence of a category of case was rejected, and it was considered appropriate to interpret it as a nongrammatical category. Supporting their point of view, I. Ivanova, V. Burlakova, G.Pochepsov reject the category of case in English [3]. They explain that verb cases differ from cases of syntactic-type languages. They show that differences manifest themselves both in meaning and in function, that is, function. They cite four reasons why the consonant form of a consonant cannot be recognized as a consonant suffix. Firstly, while the primary meaning of the subordinate case refers to ownership, belonging, except for the fact that the form of the subordinate case expresses values such as time (The day's wait), volume (The hair's width) or space (a mile's distance), indicates a heterogeneous relationship to its basic categorical meaning. This is not considered typical for synthetic cases of inflectional languages. Secondly, the function of the accusative case is limited, and it is divided into two: a) lexical, that is, it consists only of the names of animate nouns (The girl's voice, the dog’s Bark), and in some cases it is used with inanimate nouns denoting specific objects (The car’s roof, The door’s support); b) positional, that is, the accusative case always deals with horses. Thirdly, there is no plural case formant. As we know, in colloquial speech, the singular and plural forms of nouns in the accusative case do not differ, that is, they are pronounced the same (The boy’s room and The boys’ room). Thus, a homonymy of formants appears -‘S/-S’. They differ only in written speech, without differentiating at all in oral speech [3]. But this homonymy only applies to words like boy, boy's, Boys, and examples such as her friend's dress, The boy's hands, are not included in it. In addition, words (children's, men's) that retain the plural declension are excluded.

Fourth, in addition to the fact that the adverb formant is added to phrases expressed by a noun (John and Tom's room, King Denmark's son, the speech of the Prime Minister of England), it is also included in phrases that are not expressed by a noun at all (for example, in the book somebody else’s Book). In addition, G.N.Vorontsova argues that the category of case exists only in pronouns, that is, in “who”, that is, in “I” and the interrogative pronoun [25, 168]. He classified his views in the book “Essays on English grammar”. He divides cases into such forms as “independent” and “subordinate”. “In such cases, the content of the case category should be clear, that is, “independent“ and “subordinate” in meaning”, he says [4]. He identifies exceptional cases when the pronoun “I” stands in place of the main consonant. For example, “Who's there?”Creed, Michael. “Me”, bawled the ungrammatical Digby (J.Galsworthy). The ”submission“ case form is used here instead of the ”independent" case form. Such situations are usually more common in colloquial speech. That is why he says that “the forms of the case category in personal pronouns have lost their depth in the syntactic contrast between the “independent“ and “subordinate” species” [4]. Accordingly, he suggests dividing the two case forms of personal pronouns into main (nominative) and objective (objective)terms such as “first” and “second” or “mediumistic” and “without a medium”. Thus, G.N. Vorontsova also rejects the morpheme and gives the following reasons why it is rejected: 1) the scale of use of the morpheme ' s is optional (his mother's, of his mother). 2) it is sometimes used in certain groups of nouns that are rare. 3) ’s is used in the plural and singular (child’s, children’s). 4) occurs in nouns in a much smaller plural (bull, but cow). The 's does not form an integral part of the verbal structure. It can be placed after the main noun in the attributive (defining) group (“Been reading that fellow what's his name's attack in The Sunday Times?”). Thus, the author rejects the category of case in modern English [25, 48]. In addition, L. Barkhudarov in his research also tries to determine whether there really is a category of case in the nominative case of the English language, and distinguishes between two cases in English: Common case and Genetive case. In modern English, only one character indicates that the noun has a morpheme that modifies the Word, and an actual case (other than general case) that expresses the syntactic relation in the sentence. The English language shows that the semantics of the verb case morpheme has its own peculiarities. Firstly, the morpheme “s” is identical to the plural suffix in English and is a modifier suffix of a singular word that can also accompany it, for example, oxen’s, children’s. Secondly, the morpheme of the verb case differs in ambiguity compared to other inflectional morphemes (it is even difficult to distinguish which of its meanings are primary and primary, and which are secondary). Thirdly, the main characteristic of the morpheme of the English accusative case may be that it is attached not only to the word, but to the entire dictionary, for example, “daughter of the King of England”, “Toby and Dora’s plan”, “a moment or two thoughts”, “a man on the street”, “a boy, who lives”, “the brother from the street” [5] analyzes such aspects as: Based on the above, it is worth noting that they reject the category of case in modern English. On the other hand, the verb case form is considered as a syntactic rather than a morphological form, and the s form in the words represented by it is considered as a syntactic category of possessivity rather than as a form of the morphological case category.

In fact, using the above analysis and examples, it can be seen that the function that the formant performs indicates that it is specific to the syntactic category based on arguments. This removes the English case of the case from a number of grammatical categories and substantiates theories and views on the absence of a case category in the English language. Thus, instead of the category of case in English, it became necessary to create a category of possessiveness that would express possessiveness, belonging, and the relationship of attraction and attraction based on the properties that attraction expresses. Because in all of the above analyses, the units expressed in the imperative case perform a syntactic function in a sentence. This determines the inclusion of the imperative mood in the grammatical category in the category of possessiveness, which is a syntactic category, and makes it a structural component. As we know, possessiveness is, in fact, the relationship between two objects, when the possession or belonging of one to the other is expressed by linguistic means. These relations are called ”possessive-possessive", and the units they represent are called possessive constructions. As a rule, a person is understood as a possessor, that is, a master. Consequently, positional relations are understood as his possession of an object or the belonging of an object to a person. In English, possessiveness is expressed by other means besides the adverbial formant. For example, it can be expressed using articles, prepositions, pronouns, and syntactic means:

In conclusion, we can say that the issue of noun case in English has been considered by most linguists and approached in different ways. In addition, a number of problems related to aiming can be traced from the above analysis. In addition, these controversial cases ensure that the verb case is not considered as a grammatical category, that it has mainly a syntactic function and can be included in the category of possessiveness. Thus, the views and theories that the case category in English is excluded from a number of grammatical categories are reasonably supported.