Introduction

In world linguistics, a wide range of research has been carried out in systematic study of controversial issues of traditional syntax, differentiation of semantic, lexical and stylistic approaches to the essence of valence theory, as well as the principles of identifying monovalent and polyvalent syntactic units in the English simple sentence structure. In particular, in most studies devoted to various issues of valence theory, the problem has been studied in terms of the lexical-semantic properties of the verb. In addition to the phonological, lexical and semantic levels of language, scientific research is also being conducted to determine the semantics of syntactic valence and syntactic units. There are different approaches to valence theory on the syntactic level, which is important in linguistics. The need for comprehensive coverage of this issue in terms of the syntactic and semantic level of the language determines the importance of research on this issue on the basis of new approaches, as well as the relevance of the topic.

The practical significance of the topic is determined that the results of the analysis on the basis of linguistic methods can be implemented in a special course “Theoretical and practical grammar” for undergraduate students, and in the courses “Actual problems of theoretical grammar”, “Linguistic methods”, “Translation theory”, “Comparative typology”, “Syntactic-semantics” for postgraduate students. It can be used in seminars and in the process of composing textbooks, manuals in these areas.

Literature review

The concept of valence in linguistics was first used by the Russian linguist. D. Katsnelson and explained as follows: The combination of a word with other words in the process of participating in the sentence structure on the basis of a certain combination is called valence (Кацнельсон, 1948). Since then, Russian linguists have been trying to determine valence by following S.D. Katznelson and European linguists have been following L. Tesniere. In Western linguistics we can mention the works of scholars as L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, P.de Swart, Peter W. Culicover, R.M.W. Dixon, N. Richard and some others.

1. Tesniere divided verbs into four main groups based on the concept of “verbocentrism” in determining valence:
2. zero-valent verbs: this group includes verbs such as to drizzle, to rain, to snow, to freeze;
3. single-valent verbs –intransitive: verbs such as to doze, to travel, to bark, to blink, to cough, to faint are included;
4. bivalent verbs – transitive: verbs such as to answer, to attack, to begin, to grow, to keep, to love are included.
5. trivalent verbs: to say, to tell, to give, to present are considered in this group (Сапрыкина, 1965).

This classification is mainly based on the hierarchy of participants: the number of valences is determined at the expense of the complements: the subject - the first, the direct object - the second, the indirect object - the third participant, and the adverbial modifiers are ignored. According to the definition given by L. Tesniere, the idea that a verb can have up to 20 valences is put forward. However, the term valence is derived from chemistry, where, at most, up to eight valencies have been identified. I. Erben, on the other hand, claims that not only subject and object, but adverbial modifiers, attribute and predicative can also participate in defining verb valency and divides the simple sentence into four models:

1. avalent verb: the woman is napping.
2. bivalent verb: the cat caught a mouse.
3. trivalent verb: the mother teaches her daughter to sew.
4. four-valent verb: the father is writing a letter to his son with the pen (Erben, 1966).

In the aforementioned examples, the valence is determined mainly from the number of subjects and objects that are connected to the verb.

According to H.L. Somers, the approach to valence only within the verb is limited by the number of complements it controls, which does not fully substantiate the theory of valence (Somers, 1984). In addition, Professor A.M. Mukhin mentioned, Considering the verb always as the structural center of the sentence leads to some ambiguities: first, the impersonal forms of the verb are not syntactic units, they can only be syntactic units if they realize in the sentence structure via internal syntactic connections. This applies to both noun and adjective; secondly, there are also verbless sentences in the example of English or Russian, from the point of view of the approach that the verb is the center of the sentence, it is impossible to find a solution of valence in such sentences; thirdly, in addition to the description of valence in the sentence structure, there are also lexical conjugation features of verbs, that it is difficult to talk about valence without considering their meaning given in dictionaries (Мухин, 1970).

The reason for analyzing sentences in this way from the point of view of valence, as in the examples above, is that the syntactic connections which connect the syntactic units involved in the sentence structure have not been studied in detail on the syntactic level. In Uzbek linguistics, research on the theory of valence within the language levels has been conducted mainly based on the lexical features of the verb. Although significant progress has been made in studying the role and importance of lexical and semantic valence of language units, monographic work on valence on the syntactic level is relatively lacking. There is also a need to use new methods of syntactic analysis, as the traditional method of dividing parts of sentence does not fully justify itself. In this research article, one of the most actual issues is to reveal the essence of the idea that any independent word group can have a valence on the syntactic level using modern research methods, i.e. dividing into components and syntaxemes, by means of different ways of transformation.

Among the Uzbek linguists the works of A.A. Abduazizov, N.Q. Turniyozov, I.K. Kochkartoev, R. Rasulov, A. Nurmonov, S.Muhamedova, M.Mirtojiev, U.I. Yuldasheva and Sh.A. Ganieva on valence are also noteworthy. These scientists have tried to study valence on different levels of language. Based on scientific research of the linguists as A.M. Mukhin, U.U. Usmanov, Sh.S. Ashurov, D.T. Kubeysinova, M.R. Jollybekova (Мухин, 1968; Теньер, 2007; Ашуров, 2007; Кубейсинова, 2008; Жоллыбекова, 2008), we determined the syntactic valence as follows: in the simple sentence structure a syntactic unit, regardless of the form of the verb (it does not matter the part of speech), involved on the basis of a single syntactic connection is considered a monovalent element, a syntactic unit involved on the basis of a two syntactic connections is bivalent, and three syntactic connections is a trivalent component (Асадов, 2018).

Methods

On the functional-syntactic level, if the division of a valence into monovalent or polyvalent, obligatory or facultative valence, strong and weak valence components based on the verb or syntactic unit in the function of predicate in the sentence structure is not thoroughly explained by specific linguistic methods, it makes any researcher incapable of expressing valence comprehensively on the syntactic level. In this regard, U.U. Usmanov states: “The analysis of syntactic units involved in the sentence structure using componential and syntaxeme analysis, rather than the analysis of parts of speech, reveals the essence of syntactic analysis” (Усмонов, 2004). Indeed, in the analysis of the sentence structure dividing into components means syntactical connection between lexical units in the structure of the sentence in the syntagmatic direction and the defined syntactic connections can be shown by means of junctional models and their differential-syntactic features and morphological expression would be expressed in componential models. Linguists emphasize that government, agreement and jointment are syntactic relations or syntactic connections, but if we take into consideration those connections on the syntactic level, it becomes clear that agreement is a morphological connection. Because agreement is mainly manifested on the morphological level of the language and is therefore a morphological connection. In the definitions given to the government, it is said that on the level of word combinations, it can be mentioned of the lexical meaning of the transitive verb. According to this point, we can consider that government is a lexical connection. At the same time jointment is also lexical connection.

In the topic chosen, we aimed to clarify the theory of valence on the basis of five of the seven syntactic connections worked out by A.M. Mukhin nuclear predicative, subordinative, coordinative, non-nuclear predicative and appositive. Syntactic valence is determined by the number of syntactic connections, i.e., it is proved by junctional models that each syntactic unit in a sentence can have valence. If they are connected on the basis of one syntactic connection, it is a monovalent component; the ones having two or three syntactic connections are called bivalent and trivalent components respectively or polyvalents.

Discussion

Based on examples collected from the fiction literature, it was found that monovalent components can replace core components (NP1 subject, NP2 predicate) and non-nuclear dependent (ÑD – secondary part of sentence) components in the sentence structure. Using the following example, we analyze monovalent syntactic units that occur in all three syntactic positions on the basis of junctional (J.M.) and component (C.M.) models:

1) Walter’s death had been a shok to her.

Table 1.

In this sentence, each syntactic unit is a monovalent component because they are syntactically connected to each other via one syntactic relation. Nuclear components nuclear predicated (NP1 –subject) component death and nuclear predicating (NP2 – predicate) component had been a shock are connected on the base of nuclear predicative connection. Syntactic units in the position of non-nuclear dependent (ÑD) components Walter’s and to her are also monovalent and they are related to NP1 death and NP2 had been a shock by means of subordinate connection.

Syntactic units that replace NP1 and NP2 are dominant or base components relative to subordinate components. The componential model of the analyzed sentence is expressed as follows: The syntactic unit in the position of ÑD Walter’s is expressed by a noun in possessive case (Sps), NP1 death by a noun in common case (S), NP2 had been a shock by a link verb and noun (cS), ÑD to her by preposition and pronoun in objective case (prPnоb).

The nuclear components in the example below can be determined using transformation omission, e.i., missing non-nuclear dependent components:

Walter’s death had been a shock to her → …death had been a shock…

Even if we omit the non-nuclear dependent components, the main content of the sentence is preserved. However, the nuclear components cannot be omitted:

Walter’s death had been a shock to her ≠ Walter’s ... had been a shock to her ≠ Walter’s death ... to her.

It is clear from the result of the transformation that if the nuclear components are dropped, the content of the sentence becomes unclear. We also analyzed that the non-nuclear dependent components are linked not only to the head words, but also to a second subordinate part on the base of subordinate connections.

In the English simple sentence structure, syntactic units are trivalent components if they are related on the basis of three syntactic connections. Analyzing the material collected on the topic, we have seen that trivalent components can act, in the traditional term, as an apposition and interact with other components in three syntactic relations. According to V.O. Pavlov, one of them is connected explicitly (directly) via an appositive syntactic connection, the other two different syntactic connections are implicitly (indirectly) (Павлов, 1994; Сапрыкина, 1965). Implicitly connected syntactic relations and their differential syntactic signs can be proved using different types of transformational method.

Trivalent components can come in the following syntactic positions:

1. When analyzing the trivalent elements in the sentence structure in the function of the nonnuclear dependent predicated (ÑAP1), it becomes obvious that they are directly linked to the nuclear predicated 1 component of the sentence (NP1 – subject) on the basis of appositive connection, while indirectly get into nuclear predicative relation with nuclear predicating 2 (NP2 – predicate) and nuclear predicated (NP1) components. Hence, the non-nuclear appositive predicated 1 (ÑAP1) component is considered trivalent due to the fact that it has the property of binding on the base of one appositive and two nuclear predicative relations. We express this visually based on the analysis of the following example:

2) Wouldn’t you agree, Miss Ladram?

In this sentence Miss Ladram functions as the non-nuclear appositive predicated 1 (ÑAP1) component. The junctional and componential models of this sentence will be explained as follows:

Table 2.

In this sentence, we explain that the syntactic unit Miss Ladram is a trivalent component based on the transformation method as follows:

(2a) Wouldn’t you agree, Miss Ladram? → (2а) you are Miss Ladram.

Table 3.

So, if Miss Ladram, in the position of ÑAP1 component in this sentence, is explicitly connected with the syntactic unit you, which functions as the nuclear predicated 1 component, by an appositive connection, then implicitly enters into a nuclear predicative relation. Also, when the transformation method is used in order to determine the implicit-type third nuclear predicative connection, it is possible to replace the nuclear predicated 1 (NP1) component you with Miss Ladram, which functions as the non-nuclear appositive predicated 1 (ÑAP1) component: (2) Wouldn’t you agree, Miss Ladram? →(2b) Wouldn’t Miss Ladram agree?

As a result of the transformation, it looks as follows:

(2b) Wouldn’t Miss Ladram agree?

Table 4.

2. Trivalent elements in the position of the non-nuclear appositive dependent (ÑAD) component. When the sentence structure was analyzed dividing into components, it became clear that the trivalent non-nuclear appositive dependent components are mainly represented by proper nouns. Moreover, the trivalence of syntactic units in place of the non-nuclear appositive dependent component occurs explicitly by means of an appositive connection, while subordinative and nuclear predicative bonds occur implicitly using the types of the transformation method.
3. Trivalent elements in the position of the homogeneous non-nuclear predicating 2 (HÑDP2) component. According to the analysis of examples collected from fiction literature, trivalent components in the position of homogeneous non-nuclear dependent predicating 2 (HÑDP2) are in a coordinative relation mutually, and in two other (subordinate and non-nuclear predicative) syntactic connections with other components, and all three of these connections proved to be explicit.

3) I happened to be interested and know the answer (SHB,17).

(3) I happened to be interested and know the answer → I ... to be interested and know the answer → I was interested and knew the answer → I was interested … I knew…

As a result, the nuclear double predicated 1 (NP1P1), nuclear predicating 2 (NP2), homogeneous non-nuclear dependent predicating 2 (HÑDP2) components were identified. Their morphological expressions can be diverse, they can be connected by coordinative conjunctions. In such sentences, the syntactic units that represent the nuclear predicated 1 are always divalent. This is due to the fact that the nuclear predicated 1 (NP1) component interacts with the nuclear predicating 2 (NP2) component on the base of the nuclear predicative connection, and with homogeneous non-nuclear dependent predicating 2 (HÑDP2) components on the base of nonnuclear predicative connection.

Syntaxeme analysis

Componential analysis means the surface structure of sentences, while syntactic-semantic analysis is considered the deep structure. However, some linguists try to analyze the surface and deep structure of the sentence using different methods of transformation. For example, the sentences “Pat loves Chris” and “Chris is loved by Pat” mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, Chomsky in particular, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common (or very similar) deep structure (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure_and_surface_structure, 2017). Such an analysis takes into account the formal aspects of the sentence and is limited to analyzing their immediate constituents. In the syntaxeme analysis of sentences involving monovalent and polyvalent syntactic units, on the base of the categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs as substantiality (syntactic unit representing a person or object), processuality (syntactic unit representing action or staye) and qualificativity (syntactic unit denoting measure, number, degree, state, etc.) non-categorical syntactic-semantic signs can be revealed. In syntaxeme analysis, trivalent components in the function of apposition have been analysed to define their categorical and non-categorical syntactic-semantic signs. While studying the topic we came across different views of linguists on appositional word combinations. Some see the connection between them as a subordinate connection, while others consider the apposition a nounattribute and call it an attributive-predicative connection. Another group of linguists believes that the components of appositive compounds are equally related to each other. All of the above points to the fact that the apposition is directly related to other components in the sentence structure. In the research works by E.B. Aristova, A. Valmis, A.G. Rudnev and I.G. Saprykina, it is mentioned that appositive compounds, besides their determinants, enter into grammatical relations with other constituents of the sentence as well (Аристова, 1979; Вальмис, 1973; Кацнельсон, 1948; Руднев, 1968; Сапрыкина, 1965; Теньер, 2007).

However, although some of the studies mentioned above speak of the explicit direct link of apposition, there is no suggestion of an implicit - indirect connection. This indicates that the role of the apposition in the sentence structure is interpreted only one-sidedly. If the syntactic role of the apposition in the sentence, its direct and indirect relations with syntactic units, their syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations are not sufficiently studied, its position in the sentence will not be studied in detail.

The following sentence structure provides for the analysis of the trivalent syntactic unit in the function of non-nuclear appositive predicated 1 (ÑAP1), by separating it into syntaxemes. Simply put, the trivalent element that functions as ÑAP1 acts as an apposition for the subject of the sentence:

4) The woman was Beatrix Abberley’s neice, Charlotte Ladram (RGH, 46).

In the given example, the syntactic unit Charlotte Ladram is directly related to the syntactic unit woman, which functions as the nuclear predicated 1 component, on the base of an appositive connection. However, the fact that the syntactic unit in the position of apposition is indirectly connected with the syntactic unit was niece by the nuclear predicative connection can be shown using the method of variative transformation. When this sentence is analyzed dividing into syntaxemes, it becomes clear that the component Charlotte Ladram expresses a substantial identifier (Id2) syntaxeme based on an appositive relationship. Proof of this is confirmed by the following transformational method:

The woman was Beatrix Abberley’s niece, Charlotte Ladram → The woman was Charlotte Ladram: Id1. Id2.

The Charlotte Ladram in the given sentence represents a substantial identifying syntaxeme (SbId2) based on an appositive connection, and an identifying and identified syntaxemes (SbId2Id1) by means of an indirect nuclear predicative relation. Because Charlotte Ladram substantial identified (SbId1) syntaxeme is related with woman on the basis of an appositive connection, with identifying syntaxeme niece on the basis of a predicative connection. The variation method can be used to classify such links:

The woman was Beatrix Abberley’s niece, Charlotte Ladram → The woman was Charlotte Ladram - SbId1.SbId2ёки The woman was Beatrix Abberley’s niece, Charlotte Ladram → Charlotte Ladram was Beatrix Abberley’s niece – SbId1. SbPs. SbId2.

Syntaxemes in the position of ÑAP1 component can be related with four different syntaxemes based on the nuclear predicative connection:

1. substantial identifying agent syntaxeme with substantial identifying action modal negative syntaxeme and action negative syntaxeme;
2. substantial identifying existential syntaxeme with identified processual existential syntaxeme;
3. stative loaded substantial identifying syntaxeme with substantially identified qualitative stative syntaxeme.

After studying the valence components, we came to the following conclusions:

1. In world linguistics, valence theory is studied on the basis of the concept of verbocentrism, lexicographically linked to the lexical meaning of the verb, often referring to semantic valence, and verbs are divided into valences based on the lexical level of the language. But such views do not provide a smooth guide to the researcher on the syntactic level. According to our definition, valence in a sentence structure is not only a verb-specific phenomenon, but any syntactic unit participating in a sentence on the basis of one syntactic connection one-valent, two syntactic connections bivalent, three syntactic connections trivalent component.
2. The surface structure of sentences involving monovalent and polyvalent components were visually analyzed from the point of components by means of junctional models, while the deep structure was revealed in syntaxeme analysis. Their ability to relate to other syntaxemes based on syntactic connections has been extensively demonstrated using different types of transformation;
3. As a result of the analysis, the monovalent components that occur in the above-mentioned positions were mainly described as representing syntaxemes such as substantial agent, substantial object, processual actional, qualificative qualitative, stative, locative. It has been proved that monovalent components can represent 11 syntaxemes in the position of the nuclear predicated 1, 9 syntaxemes in the position of the nuclear predicating 2, and 14 syntaxemes functioning as the nonnuclear dependent component.
4. Each of the identified syntaxemes opens a wide way to comparative typology on the material of related and non-related languages. The methods which have been used in this article can be the basis for the creation of linguistic support for automatic translation in computer linguistics if they continue to be studied as separate linguistic material.