Oʻzbekcha
INGLIZ VA O‘ZBEK HUQUQIY MATNLARIDA SHART ERGASH GAPLARNING NORMATIV KUCH IFODALASHDAGI O‘RNI
Дата публикации
14.10.2026
Журнал
Filologiyaning dolzarb masalalari
Выпуск
“Filologiyaning dolzarb masalalari” mavzusidagi respublika ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
Аннотация
Maqolada shart ergash gaplarning — ingliz tilidagi if/unless va o‘zbek tilidagi -sa/agar shakllarining — huquqiy matnlarda normativ kuch ifodalash vositasi sifatidagi o‘rni tahlil qilinadi. Nutq aktlari nazariyasi (Ostin, 1962; Serl, 1969, 1975) asosida ingliz huquqidan (Theft Act 1968, Sale of Goods Act 1979) va O‘zbekiston Fuqarolik kodeksidan olingan asl matnlar tahlil qilindi. Natijalar shart gaplarning ikki normativ vazifasini ko‘rsatdi: status belgilovchi (deklarativ) shart gaplar yangi huquqiy maqom yaratadi, majburiyat yaratuvchi (direktiv) shart gaplar, jumladan standart qoidalar, tomonlar boshqacha kelishmagan taqdirda amal qiluvchi majburiyatni belgilaydi. Ingliz tili buni analitik, o‘zbek tili esa -sa qo‘shimchasi orqali sintetik ifodalaydi.
Ключевые слова
shart ergash gap
normativ kuch
illokutsion kuch
deklarativ nutq akti
direktiv nutq akti
huquqiy tilshunoslik
standart qoida
ingliz tili
o‘zbek tili
Русский
В статье рассматривается роль условных придаточных предложений — английских if/unless и узбекских -sa/agar — как средства выражения нормативной силы в юридических текстах. На основе теории речевых актов (Остин, 1962; Сёрл, 1969, 1975) анализируются подлинные тексты норм английского права (Theft Act 1968, Sale of Goods Act 1979) и Гражданского кодекса Узбекистана. Условные конструкции выполняют две функции: статус-приписывающие (декларативные) создают новый правовой статус, а обязывающие (директивные), включая диспозитивные нормы, устанавливают обязанность, действующую, если стороны не договорились иначе. Английский язык передаёт это значение аналитически, узбекский — синтетически, при помощи суффикса -sa.
условное придаточное предложение
нормативная сила
иллокутивная сила
декларативный речевой акт
директивный речевой акт
юрислингвистика
диспозитивная норма
английский язык
узбекский язык
English
This paper examines conditional clauses — English if/unless and Uzbek -sa/agar — as a means of expressing normative force in legal texts. Drawing on speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1975), it analyses authentic provisions from English law (the Theft Act 1968, the Sale of Goods Act 1979) and the Civil Code of Uzbekistan. Legal conditionals are shown to perform two functions: status-ascriptive (declarative) conditionals create a new legal status, while obligation-creating (directive) conditionals, including default rules, impose a duty unless the parties agree otherwise. English encodes this analytically; Uzbek encodes it synthetically via the -sa suffix.
conditional clause
normative force
illocutionary force
declarative speech act
directive speech act
legal linguistics
default rule
English
Uzbek
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
2. Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (1996). Article 388. lex.uz. https://lex.uz/acts/180552
3. Dadaboyev, D. G. (2025). Illocutionary speech acts as a subject matter of linguistics: An axiological cross-linguistic analysis of English and Uzbek languages. ORIENS, 217–222.
4. Kuchkarova, M., & Usenmez, E. (2026). Pragmatic functions of directive speech acts in English, Uzbek, and Turkish. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 6(5), 7–13.
5. Rakhmatova, B. I. (2025). The expression of illocutionary acts in English and Uzbek legal texts. Emergent: Journal of Educational Discoveries and Lifelong Learning, 6(9), 1–4.
6. Rakhmatova, B. I. (2026). The text of the criminal code as a legislative genre and a unit of legal discourse: A comparative study of English and Uzbek legal language. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 13(4), 2123–2126.
7. Sale of Goods Act 1979, c. 54, § 29 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/29
8. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
9. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). Academic Press.
10. Sunnatullo, K. (2025). Ontological and sociolinguistic modeling of legal terminology: Methodological innovations in English–Uzbek lexical studies. American Journal of Education and Evaluation Studies, 2(8), 276–288.
11. Theft Act 1968, c. 60, § 1 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1
12. Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
13. Trosborg, A. (1991). An analysis of legal speech acts in English contract law. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, (6), 65–90.
14. Ubaydullayeva, O. (2026). Conditional relationships in current Uzbek and English. Synapses: Insights Across the Disciplines, 3(6), 181–187.
15. Williams, C. (2023). The impact of plain language on legal English in the United Kingdom. Routledge.
16. Yoqubova, S., & Nishonova, S. (2025). Direct and indirect speech acts in English and Uzbek languages. Problems and Solutions of Scientific and Innovative Research, 2(10), 140–143.
