Stylistic Features of Hyperbola and Litotes in the Speech of Characters in Uzbek Dramatic Works

Sobirov Qahramon Saloyevich¹

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal-Paper
Vol.9 , Issue.9 , pp.21-25, Sep-2023

Online published on Sep 30, 2023

Copyright © Sobirov Qahramon Saloyevich . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

Abstract :
This article deals with the lexical-semantic and stylistic study of language units representing hyperbola and litotes in Uzbek dramatic works, the polysemantics of character speech, the importance of tropes in ensuring the figurativeness and visuality of artistic speech and increasing its effectiveness were analysed. Litotes improves the meaning of words and phrases as a way of discriminating, focusing on specific events by reducing their signs. In this sense, litotes is opposed to hyperbola, which is why it is also called “reverse hyperbola”. Litotes are often used for ethical reasons: humility and lowering one’s achievements allows one to form a positive opinion about it. In dramatic works, exaggeration and rhetorical understatement provide expressiveness and imagery in the speech of the characters. It also aims at finding out which one of these tropes is more or less common in the selected Uzbek dramatic works, showing whether or not these devices are characteristic of this register; and explicating the pragmatic purpose behind using these two devices. They are among the tools that shape the logical strength, richness and colorfulness of the characters’ speech.

Key-Words / Index Term :
Uzbek linguistics, tropes, figurative expression, hyperbola, litotes, dramatic work, character speech

References :
[1]. E. Daryaee Motlagh, “The Use and Frequency of Hedges in Applied Linguistics Papers Written by Male and Female Scholars: A Gender-based Comparison,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Science, Vol.7, Issue.1, pp.16-21, 2021.
[2]. T. Zaheen, S. Akter, “Linguistic Behavior of Young Adults: A Gender- Based Study,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Science, Vol.7, Issue.9, pp.94-99, 2021.
[3]. D. Geeraets, “Theories of Lexical Semantics,” Oxford, Oxford University Press, p.29, 2010.
[4]. R. Kongurov, “Semantic and stylistic features of subjective assessment forms,” Tashkent, Science, pp.122-128, 1980..
[5]. F. Nasriddinov, “The language of the dramatic work,” Scientific works of TashSU, New series, Issue.162, Tashkent, pp.16-22, 1960.
[6]. B. Turdialiev, “Hamza and the Uzbek literary language,” Tashkent, Fan, pp.42-45, 1981.
[7]. E. Abdiev, “Language and style of K. Yashin’s dramas,” Abstract. Ph.D. diss, Tashkent, pp.16-22, 1981.
[8]. I. Kuchkartoev, “Phraseological innovation of A. Kakhkhar,” Abstract. Ph.D. diss., Tashkent, pp.44-48, 1965.
[9]. E. Qilichev, “Lexical means of artistic image,” Tashkent, Science, pp.28-34, 1982.
[10]. A. Shomaksudov, “Stylistics of the Uzbek language,” Tashkent, Teacher, pp.56-58, 1983.
[11]. M. Mirtojiyev, “Polysemy in the Uzbek language,” Tashkent, Science, pp.32-34, 1975.
[12]. M. Mukarramov, “Analogy in the Uzbek language,” Tashkent, Fan, pp.87-89, 1975.
[13]. M. Abrams, G. Harpham, “A Glossary of Literary Terms,” 9th edition, USA, Wodsworth Cengage Learning, p.149, 2009.
[14]. C. Claridge, “Hyperbole in English: A Corpus-based Study of Exaggeration,” Cambridge, CUP, pp.5-41, 2011.
[15]. G. Rowe, “Style,” Brill, Leiden, pp.121-128, 1997.
[16]. A. Cruse, “A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics,” Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, p.186, 2006
[17]. L. C. Mora, “How to Make A Mountain Out of A Molehill: A Corpus-Based Pragmatic and Conversational Analysis Study of Hyperbole in Interaction,” Valencia University, p.97, 2006.