относится к своим женам: "Обращайтесь с вашими женами достойно.
никогда не унижал, не оскорблял и не бил своих жен и приказал
верующим: "Не бейте ваших жен!".
Поэтому действия некоторых домашних тиранов по отношению к
своим супругам не имеют никакого отношения к религии Ислам, и
женщины- мусульманки в современном обществе занимают определенное
Мақалада исламдағы ҽйелдің жағдайы қарастырылған.
In the article considered about Islamic women‘s position.
1.Жданов Н.В.Исламская концепция миропорядка. –М., 2003.-325 с.
2. Коран/Пер. С араб.акад.И.Ю.Крачковского.-М.:СПИКТА, 1990.-511 с.
Жаркимбекова Н.К., к.ф.н., доцент
Халықаралық гуманитарлық-техникалық университет Шымкент қ.
Сейсенбаева Г.М., аға оқытушы, ғылым магистрі «Сырдария» университеті
The word may be described as the basic unit of language. Uniting
meaning and form, it is composed of one or more morphemes, each consisting
of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation. The combinations
of morphemes within words are subject to certain linking conditions. When a
derivational suffix is added a new word is formed, thus, listen and listener are
different words. When used in sentences together with other words they are
syntactically organized. But if we look at the language speech, it becomes
apparent that words are not neatly segmented as they are by spaces in
The pauses in speech do not consistently correspond with word-endings
many languages, including English, do not make it clear to a foreign listener
where the utterance is divided into words. The definition of a word is one of the
most difficult in linguistics because the simplest word has many aspects. All
attempts to characterize the word are necessarily specific for each domain of
science and are therefore considered one-sided by the representatives of all the
other domains and criticized for incompletness. The variants of definitions were
so numerous that some authors collecting them produced works of impressive
scope and bulk.
A few examples will suffice to show that any definition is conditioned by
the aims and interests of its author. Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679, one of the great
English philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach to the problem of
nomination when he wrote that words are not mere sounds but names of matter.
Three centuries later the great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov 1849-1936
examined the word in connection with his studies of the second signal system,
and defined it as a universal signal that can be substitute any other signal from
the environment in evoking a response in a human organism. One of the latest
developments of science and engineering is machine translation. It also deals
with words and requires a rigorous definition for them. It runs as follows a word
is a sequence of graphemes which can occur between spaces, or the
representation of such a sequence on morphemic level. Within the scope of
linguistics the word has been defined syntactically, semantically, phonologically
and by combining various approaches. It has been syntactically defined for
instance as the minimum sentence by H.Sweet and much later by L.Bloomfield
as a minimum free form the smallest unit of meaning that can exist in isolation,
but this does not help us unreservedly.
Is newspaper-seller a word, or petrol-station, or computer-programmer
smaller units when we meet them in common use. So too we can make total
response to the epithets in Joyce s phrase the bbullockbefriending bard or
Shakespear s world without end hour, although they do not follow the regular
adjective pattern. At the other extreme, we may regard an affix as less than a
word. Yet people will speak confidently about different isms and ologies, or
respond to a sentence like, Some were in favour of the idea, but most were very
anti without filing a complaint of deviance. Again, in an attempt to make a count
of all present-day English, how do we asses the set teach, teaching, teacher,
teachable, to say nothing of the change taught If a foreigner learns the form
teach and has some knowledge of methods of word-formation, how many words
has he learned Even more important, how many words has he learned in
recognizing as units the sequence of sounds which are written down s pipe,
match, box, balance For each of these, and for many other words, the dictionary
offers a number of apparently different meanings. E. Sapir takes into
consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects when he calls the word one of
the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated meaning, into which the
sentence resolves itself.
Sapir also points out one more, very important characteristic of the word,
its indivisibility It cannot be cut into without a disturbance of meaning, one or
two other or both of the several parts remaining as a helpless waif on our hands.
The essence of indivisibility will be clear from a comparison of the article a and
the prefix -a in a lion and alive. A lion is a word-group because we can separate
its elements and insert other words between them a living lion, a dead lion.
Alive is a word it is individual, i.e. structurally impermeable nothing can be
inserted between its elements. The morpheme a is not free, is not a word. The
situation becomes more complicated if we cannot be guided by solid spelling.
The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, does not include the reciprocal
pronouns each other and one another under separate headings, although they
should certainly be analyzed as word-units, not as word-groups since they have
become indivisible we now say with each other and with one another instead of
the older forms one with another or each with the other. 2 Altogether is one
word according to its spelling, but how is one to treat all right, which is rather a
similar combination When discussing the internal cohesion of the word the
English linguist John Lyons points out that it should be discussed in terms of
two criteria positional mobility and uninterruptability. To illustrate the first he
segments into morphemes the following sentence Slow ly the boy s walk ed up
the hill Up the hill slow ly walk ed the boy s Yet under all the permutations
certain groups of morphemes behave as blocks they occur always together, and
in the same order relative to one another. There is no possibility of the sequence
s the boy, ly slow, ed walk.
According to John Lyons - One of the characteristics of the word is that it
tends to be internally stable in terms of the order of the component morphemes,
but positionally mobile permutable wit other words in the same sentence. A
purely semantic treatment will be found in Stephen Ulmann s explanation with
into a certain number of meaningful segments which are ultimately compose of
meaningful units. These meaningful units are called words. Th semantic-
phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H. Gardiner s definition A word
is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of denoting something which is
spoken about. The eminent French linguist A. Meillet combines the semantic,
phonological and grammatical criteria and gives the following definition of the
word A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning with a
particular groupof sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment.
This formula can be accepted with some modifications adding that a word
is the smallest significant unit of a given language capable of functioning alone
and characterized by positional mobility within a sentence, morphological
uninterruptability and semantic integrity. All these criteria are necessary because
they permit us to create basis for the oppositions between the word and the
phrase, the word and the phoneme, and the word and the morpheme their
is that they are all units of the language, their difference lies in the fact that the
phoneme is not significant, and a morpheme cannot be used as a complete
utterance. The weak point of all the above definitions is that they do not
establish the relationship between language and thought, which is formulated if
we treat the word as a dialectical unity of form and content, in which the form is
the spoken or written expression which calls up specific meaning, whereas the
content is the meaning rendering the emotion or the concept in he mind of the
speaker which he intends to convey to the listener. Still, the main point can be
summarized The word is the fundamental unit of language. It is a dialectal unity
of form and content. Its content or meaning is not identical to notion, but it may
reflect human notions, and in this sense may be considered as the form of their
existence. Concepts fixed in the meaning of words are formed as generalized
and approximately correct reflections of reality, therefore in signifying them
words reflect reality in their content. Literary writers in all ages have
experienced what T.S. Eliot called, the intolerable wrestle with words. Although
they may have formulated no linguistic theories, they knew well enough that
meaning is not to be sought only at the level of the single word.
It is contained in the smaller units as well in the affixes, and in the
inflexions which are few in modern English but were once numerous.
Recognition of meaning within a smaller unit than the word makes it possible to
compose new units which will themselves be more readily recognized in their
own right. Meaningful neologisms depend on competence which splits the
seemingly atomic word and takes from it something that still communicates.
However much we may dislike neologisms like motorcade or washeteria,
however much we deplore the etymological inaccuracy of paratroop, we cannot
deny their semantic function. It is, however, meaning that spreads beyond word-
boundaries which is of the greatest interest. If we look at the lexicon of any
langue the store of words available to its users at a given time we are presented
with countless possibilities of combination. The lexicon is neither infinite nor
The lexicon is constantly losing items which become archaic, as well as
receiving neologisms. Yet even a lexicon much smaller than that of present-day
English offers a seemingly infinite series of syntagmatic and paradigmatic
choices. A syntagmatic sequence is correctly realized, appropriate choices from
the lexicon are inserted in their places and we once again marvel at the power of
human beings to generate new and unique sentences that are immediately
comprehensible. No single user will possess the whole lexicon, and performance
does not draw on the whole range even of what is theoretically possessed. Yet a
skilful writer has a large potential choice and exercises it widely. His choices are
among the matters to be examined through stylistics. Literary writers have a
habit of going beyond the conventions of common speech in questions of what
is correct , which choices are appropriate , even what is to be regarded as
comprehensible , and in other matters. One thing they share with the rest of us
the tension between freedom and constraint which lies beneath all linguistic
performance. The freedom of choice becomes anarchic without restriction.
Syntagmatic deviation is comparatively simple to detect and to judge.
Paradigmatic deviation is a different matter, since the choice from the paradigm
must be judged with regard to meaning and is therefore less readily referable to
the rules. Yet in relationship too each choice is to some extent restricted by what
precedes and restrictive of what follows. The restrictions may be imposed by
external forces these need to be recognized in any stylistic approach, by high
style and poetic diction . Formal considerations may condition the choice of
words phonological requirements of rhyme and alliteration, as well as metrical
ones. Fashion, form, meaning may seem a heavy concentration of armament on
one little word. Yet such concentration may be one of the factors which
distinguish literature from other linguistic styles. We all know, of course, that
the sounds or letters which make up the word tree are not identical with any
tangible vegetable growth. The word points our attention, to a particular tree or
to a concept formulated from a number of observed trees, without itself
partaking of a single characteristic that could be called tree-like . This is clear,
except when we react emotively or superstitiously to words as if they somehow
are the things that they denote, or if we are stupid enough to find something
uniquely correct in tree and are incredulous that any sensible person would call
the same object arbre or baum or albero. The identification of words with things
is some psychological and anthropological interest it has implications for our
present purpose too.
The word nightingale is not a small brown bird that sings by night neither
is rossignol, luscinia, Philomel, or light-winged Dryad of the trees. Yet all these
point to the same creature the first in what we should call a foreign language, the
second in technical zoological description, and the others We are back with the
question of appropriate register, for the last two are clearly literary and
acceptable only in a certain kind of context. Each of the four has a place where it
seems to fit, isolated from others where it would be awkward or deviant. We
adjust our expectations and meet it without surprise, once we have accepted that
registers in a langue no register can be excluded even though we may learn to
recognize a distinctively literary register, or several. We do not know what to
expect as we do in non-literary situations we do not know where we are, and that
is one reason why literature is exciting and important. Most communication in
life is carried on with an unconscious prediction of probabilities and rejection of
improbabilities. In buying a railway ticket, it is extremely likely that single,
please, change will be heard, even more extremely unlikely that dragon, tribal,
or syntax will be. No such inhibitions constrain the literary writer, and the
response to his work must be open and receptive.
Yet the balance is not all one way and although literature may seem
open-ended in its possibilities, it does in fact act as something of a controlling
influence. This is not, or not solely, by reason of proscriptivism among its
practitioners and critics, but by the very fact of its existence as part of a
community s culture, as a set of permanent and prestigious linguistic realization.
Sooner or later in every age, and despite the intentions of successive
reformers,literature creates its own stylistic variations from the spoken norm.
Words which are lifted from the lexicon for the particular use may be returned to
it with signs of their honour still upon them. A single use may dignify a word
and give it life after many of its contemporaries have faded into archaism this is
true, for understanding if not for active use, of the Authorized Version kine and
the Shakespearean bourne.
More often, the power of the word comes from repeated use. Words are
not things, but they can acquire associations which affect our way of
understanding things. The word culled from the lexicon does not come untested
by the speech-community. Like a human being, its distinctiveness is partly owed
to the influence of birth and environment. Its user has a certain responsibility to
honour its accepted meaning and its proper placing in the syntax. Usage can blur
and blunt meaning as well as sharpening it, and the result may be the ambiguity
against which manuals of good writing warn us and in which poets rejoice. The
ambiguities of daily speech are, generally, unintentional and call for clarification
as soon as they are detected. They may be phonic I meant I d have a pear, the
fruit, not a pair, two or semantic Do you mean funny, peculiar, or funny, ha,ha
Or syntactic, as when we question whether running water means water which
runs, or the process of causing water to run. Any of these may occur in
literature, but in this style the are much more likely to be studied and intentional.
The words of literary language may be in conflict, bu it is conflict to which they
are deliberately set on, in contrast to the random brawls of words in colloquial
use. The type of phonic ambiguity known as the pun is familiar to all.
The phonic identity or close similarity of two or more words is exploited
in a manner which brings their different meanings into juxtaposition. Its
deterioration in the humour of the pantomime and the Victorian comic
periodical should not make the modern reader despise its use in foregrounding
with more serious intent. It can be explicit, when the words in question are
realized as separate units I ll gilled the faces of the grooms withal, For it must
Бұл мақала ағылшын тіліндегі сҿздің мағыналары жайында жазылған. Сҿздің
мағынасы лингвистикада ең қиыны ҿйткені жай сҿздің ҿзі бірнеше аспектіден тұрады.
В этой статье рассматриваются значения слов в английском языке. Значения слов в
лингвистике самое трудное потому что простое слово состоит из наскольких аспектов.
1.Медникова Э. М. Значение слова и методы его описания. М., 1999.
4. Хидекель С. С. Гинзбург Р. 3., Князева Г. Ю., Санкин А. А. Английская
лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. Л., 2-е изд., 2003.
Кейбір сӛздердің шығу тӛркіні
«Сырдария» университеті, ф.ғ.к., доцент
Сҿздердің шығу тҿркінін сҿз ету–тілдегі ҿзекті мҽселелердің бірі.
Кейбір сҿздердің шығу тҿркіні жайлы ҽр түрлі пікір бар. Тіл тарихына кҿз
жіберсек, бірсыпыра сҿздердің этимологиясы туралы ғылыми жорамалдар
ғана жасай аламыз. Баспасҿзде жарияланған бірсыпыра болжамдарды
айтып ҿтудің артықшылығы жоқ қой деп ойлаймыз.
Нарын – Батыс Қазақстан облысының оңтүстік-батысындағы үлкен
құм мен ҿзен. Нарын сҿзі- қазақ даласына кең тараған атау. Бұл атау тек
қазақ даласына ғана кең тарап қоймаған, сондай-ақ нарын атты ҿзен
Қырғызстанда, Тува республикасында, Чита облысында Нарынқала,
Нарынқұдық атаулары Наманган облысы мен Калмыкияда кездеседі. Бұл
топонимнің монғол тілінен енгендігін айта отырып, ғалымдар оның
этимологиясы тҿңірегінде бір пікірге келе бермейді. «Монғолша-қазақша
сҿздікте» «наран» - күн, күнгей ұғымын береді десе, ЭіМурзаев оны
монғолдың «нарийн» - жіңішке, нҽзік сҿзінен шыққан деп түсіндіреді.
Шынында да, Нарын сҿзінің беретін мағынасы кҿп: 1) Жіңішке, нҽзік; 2)
жинақты, ұқыпты; 3) Шебер, қу, айлакер; 4) Сараң, қатты; Бұлардың
арасында Нарын топониміне жақын келетіні – біріншісі, ҿйткені Нарын
құмының кҿлемі Қарақұм, Қызылқұмдарға қарағанда кішкене, шағын жҽне
сусыған нҽзік құм. Нарын сҿзі күн, күнгей мағынасын береді деген
пікірден гҿрі аумақ, кҿлем, ҿлшемін беретін монғолдың «нарийн» сҿзінен
( Ұлдай Ералиева, «Ана тілі». 2.ХІІ. 2012,4.01.2013).