SO-CALLED REFLEXIVE AND RECIPROCAL VOICE.

     SO-CALLED REFLEXIVE AND RECIPROCAL VOICE.

                                           Rajabova Kamilla Zavkiddinovna:

                                           a sophomore of Uzbek State World

                                           Languages university. UzSWLU.

                                           Academic adviser: a dean of the faculty of

                                           translation as well as a senior teacher : Omonov P.X.

Annotation: so-called reflexive and reciprocal voice are scrutinized in this scientific paper and their connection with the whole grammatical organization is illustrated.

Key words : so-called reflexive and reciprocal voices, active voice and passive voice, reflexive relations, each other and one anothe, –self, –ся, reversibility, reflexivity, the verb-predicate.

The cases of so-called reflexive and reciprocal voices are of some theoretical interest. The latter cannot be added either to the lexical means of expressing the voice relations or to the intermediate forms connecting the active voice with the passive one. In spite of the apparent homonymy of the outerformal sign in Russian (the particle –ся) its function coincides in both languages.

In English in the case of expressing reflexive relations the particle –self (joining the corresponding form of a personal pronoun) is used. In the case of reciprocal relations a word combination of the type each other, one another or a zero position is used. Let’s begin with reflexivity.

The main thing in conveying the relations of such a type is restricting the connections by the limits of one performer which may consist either of a single object (of the type The brother shaved himself) or of many homogeneous objects (The brothers shaved themselves). The reversibility of the action onto the initial doer is psychologically perceived as a special kind of concentrating attention on the given object. It is singled out from a number of others copositioned with it which act as if in a more distant remoteness from it.

The so-called reciprocal voice expressed in Russian by the same formal means has in fact the same basis of correlation with the object which is seen in expressing reflexibility. In English there are the constructions of the type each other, one another and the like. In both the cases the object appears to be closely non-communicable and does not allow direct widening beyond the limits of the doer of the action. If the widening is allowed it appears as a psychologically prepared transferring of such widening on any possible object. The fact is that here one may trace the disclosure of a definite processing property of an object which may be transplanted on another object. But the latter is excluded from the immediate consideration. It is removed from the speaker and in this view acts not as a centre of the primary but of the secondary approach based on conveying the meaning of exclusiveness. Its mentioning therefore is far from being obligatory and grammatically it is fixed by a syntactically closed structure. The latter does not allow its direct widening at the expense of introducing different kinds of additions. In other words reciprocal meaning and reflexivity have much in common.

The particle –self  behaves rather specifically:

1.     As an indicator of reflexivity it is joined not to the verb but to a personal pronoun being placed quite in a different row of structural conveyers (not of dynamic kind).

2.     Among syntactic means its role comes to defining a direction of an action.

3.     In Russian the particle –ся while expressing reflectivity marks the closeness of the object in English, on the contrary, the particle shows not so much the reversibility as the prospect of transferring the action to some object (one of which may be the initial one). Thus the initial doer appears to be in one row with other objects introducing new denotates. In connection with this we cannot speak about the grammatical functioning of a reflexive voice as –self does not reflect the action on the doer but widens the volume of the doer narrowing our idea of the character of moving the action. The latter appears not as progressing without any limit but as limitedly-directed. That is why speaking about the function of the particle –self in English one may evaluate it not as a form of the voice (because in all the cases with –self  the voice remains the same active) but as a form of direction connected with the definition of a doer at its processive disclosing which is terminative.

The same picture is observed at using the verb-predicate with the word combinations of the type each other , one another which are usually called the forms of the reciprocal voice. However in this case we cannot speak about changing the voice as psychologically one’s attention is concentrated on the centre of the primary approach and grammatically it is rendered with the corresponding form of the active voice.

Conclusion: In connection with this it seems impossible to speak about advisability of singling out additional voices through it is possible and even necessary to consider the peculiarity of the concrete expression of separate shades of meaning built on the basis of general categorical meaning of exclusiveness and having its network of paradigmatic forms.

The list of used literature:

 1 . Koshevaya I . G .  The theory of English grammar .  M. , 1982 .

2. Vorontsova G . N . The summary of English grammar. M. , 1956 .

3. Poutsma P . H . Grammar of Late Modern English ., 1926 .

4. Chafe V . Structures of English . N . Y . ., 1963 .

5. Sweet H . Language . N . Y . , 1931 .

6.Bonk N . A . , Lukyanova N . A . , Pamukhina L . G . , English language . B. , 2001.