Page 1 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1645

Formation of transformation components based on the

applicative model

Samandarov Rustam Dusyorovich, independent researcher at

Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages

E-mail: rusya_1984@mail.ru

Annotation. This article provides information about applicative model. The

transformation process also includes cognitive-pragmatic instruments and

anthropocentric features of language.

Keywords: Applicative model, genotypic abstraction, transformation, frame,

Tagframe, pragmatic instruments

While information about the connection of applicative model with transformation

at its high level has been described in linguistic literatures, reaction of the model

to the transformation is not mentioned by concrete language material.

Here we can usually see evidences of genotypic , abstract language materials.

Formation of the components of transformation on the basis of the applicative

model is noted in some cases. For example, in the work of S. Shaumyan and P. A.

Sobolev ," Applicative generative model and calculus of transformations in the

Russian language ", the followings were taken as a basis for the analysis of

linguistic material.

The boy sings - R2 N R1 V.

Transformation of the given word

1). R1R2 N R2 R1 V - (Singer was a boy)

Page 2 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1646

2). R2R2 N R3 R1 V - (singing boy)

3). R3R2 N R2 R1 V - (boy singing)

4). R4R2 N R3 R1 V - (sung by a boy).1

In the given example, the structure of R2N R1V is considered to be

invariant, its meaning and alternative ones, their formulation in the transforms are

stated together with each relevant terms of the words relating to certain genres..

In our minds, by approaching the essence of the matter through this way

transforms can depict the attitude on the basis of applicative model of the

components. The second aspect of the problem, that is, the intersection of the

utility model with the transformative model remains unclear. Furthermore, we can

only justify the syntactic expansion of a particular transformation by using this

method. When comparing transforms, we can not say anything about the cross- over:

In Yu.D. Apresyan, the connection between the applicative model and the

transformative is almost no different than those given in the case of S. S.

Shaumyan and P. A. Sobolev. Here is an example of Yu. Apresyan:

R2R2 X R3 R1 X R4 R4 X - Writer completing the book

R4N2 X R3 R1 X R2 R4 X - Book completed by the writer

R2R4 X R1 R1 X R4 R2 X - Book ends with writer2

R3R2 X R2 R1 X R3 N4 X - Completion of the book by the writer.

1

Shaumyan S.K., Sobolev P.A. Applicative generative model and calculus of transformations in the

Russian language. . - M., 1963

2

Apresyan Yu.D. Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics. . - M., 1966. - P.231.

Page 3 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 1647

Here, we can also see the usual transformation. In other words, at the same

time, there is no information about the transformative from the applicative model

to the transformation or the intersection of these two models. The syntactic

formation of each transformation is accompanied by specific morphological means

– applicative model. However, the syntax for each applicator is only visible at a

single word level. This does not mean that the applicative and transformative

models interact with one another.

It is obvious that the transformation process is directly related to cognitive -

pragmatic means, as well as to the distributive environment. Cognitive - pragmatic

factors are also based on semantic and then syntactic relationships. Additionally, at

the same time, the anthropocentric character of the tongue, more precisely, the

anthropocentric function of the tongue is significant for both applicative and

transformative models.

Indeed, the human factor is the main means of controlling the use of the

language even though it does not live within the language system. Therefore, the

most important of the pragmatic means is human.This includes all those who speak

a specific language, regardless of their level of vocation. In their native language,

naturally, there are certain principles in the use of phoneme, morphemes, and use

of words. A person can extend or narrow down the syntactic form of the speech in

his native language. This is because of its cognitive potential, our language itself

is a complex of symbols as a cognitive tool.3

Let us give one example for our

argument.

It is quite natural to get acquainted with the term of Mahmud Ghaznaw for

those who read the novel of "The Old World" by Odil Yoqibov. This means we

3

Sorokina TS Functional bases of the theory of grammatical synonymy // Questions of language

knowledge, 2003, N.3. - P.101.