Сomparative phonetics of French and Uzbek sounds (as example of French and Uzbek languages)

Поделитесь статьей с друзьями:
Автор(ы): Маmasoliyeva G. A.
Рубрика: Филологические науки
Журнал: «Евразийский Научный Журнал №12 2019»  (декабрь, 2019)
Количество просмотров статьи: 362
Показать PDF версию Сomparative phonetics of French and Uzbek sounds (as example of French and Uzbek languages)

Маmasoliyeva Gulchexra Abduhalilova
The senior teacher of the department of French language and literature
Аndizhan state University, Uzbekistan

In this article the problem of expression of the gradual relations between phonological units in a paradigm of vowels is considered. Materials of the French and Uzbek languages are compared on this basis opinion about their expressions in these languages are given.

Pivot words: privative opposition, gradual opposition, equipollent opposition phonologic units, degrees of graduations, additional units, nasal indexes, openness index, closeness index, nasal vowels.

Language structure has a level-sensitive construction and the level units are in mutual integrative relations. Relations between the units are defined according to their relation to one level or different level. There is a paradigmatic relation among the units related to one level and they can also have types of internal relations.

We add also signs of length and shortness to the above-mentioned signs, because length and shortness in the vowel system of French is peculiar.

The above-stated phonological signs are observed in French in the following way:

Les voyelles fermées , les voyelles ouvertes,les voyelles antérieures(aigües), les voyelles postérieures (graves), lesvoyellesnasales, les voyelles orales .

Сonsonnes: orales (le voile du palais ferme la cavité nasale)
nasales ( le voile du palais laisse ouvert le passage par la cavité nasale), sonores ( si les cordes vocales vibrent), sourdes( les cordes vocales ne vibrent pas, la glotte est ouverte), occlusives (momentanées, explosives), constrictives (continues, fricatives), sifflantes, chuintantes, labiales,bilabiales, labio-dentales, alvéo-dentales, alvéolaires, post-alvéolaires, palatales, vélaires(dorsal/parisien), bilabio-palatale , bilabio-vélaire .

In modern linguistics, especially in languages of different system the gradual relation is not worked out from the phonological point of view. On the assumption of the above-mentioned gradual ranges in learner’s dictionary of S. Bobojonov and I. Islomov we found it necessary to single out the range of phonological differences by grading.

According to the size of composition:


And in French:

phonéme→morphéme→mot→forme (groupe rytmique→syntagme)

According to the complexity of speech unit composition: soundsyllablewordphrasesentence; sonnesyllabemot→ groupe rytmique→syntagmephrase

According to the quantity of voice:



In the dictionary of S. Bobojonov and I. Islomov it is graded according to quantity of voice. But in our opinion, it would be more desirable to grade according to the participation of vocal cords rather than quantity of voice. So, according to the participation of vocal cords:



voyelle→ sonore→consonne

According to the place of articulation:

Front rowmiddle rowback row

antérieures→interieure → postérieure

According to the opening degree of mouth and raising degree of tongue:

widemedium widenarrow

And in French


ouverte→ mi- ouverte → fermée

According to the participation of lips:

labialized→ half labializednot labialized

labialisé→ mi- labiale → non labialisé

As French is different from Uzbek, the signs, which are supplementary in Uzbek, are considered essential for French. Vowel sounds in French are rich a lot and their quantity is as twice or thrice as big than those in Uzbek and some other languages (as well as Russian).

The peculiarity of vowel sounds in French lies in that there exist nasal vowels in the system of vowels of the language. According to D. Nabiyeva’s clarification, the na sality does not have a phonological cost in Uzbek. “Although nasalization is widely spread in several Uzbek dialects, it cannot be the sign of distinguishing vowel phonemes. As a supplementary sign it makes a variant of vowels. As is understood that nasalization does not exist in paradigmatic relation of vowels in Uzbek. It appears only as a supplementary sign on the effect of nasal consonants in syntagmatics” [4. 79.]

In pronouncing nasal vowels in French one should not raise the backside of tongue too high and not join it with soft palate, otherwise voice timbre will change and it will cause mixture of vowel with consonant.[ 6. 43 ]

As it is obvious, in the chain of nasal sounds above the sounds differ from each other as in the following phonologic signs: according to the quantity of voice, according to the place of articulation, according to labialization, according to the degree of mouth openness and tongue rise. These differences, in their turn, betoken the existence of grading relation.

Particularly, grading from openness to closedness, from width to narrowness, from length to shortness or vice versa is peculiar to the sound system of French. This is differentiated by appearing of pronunciation of French sounds in different degrees, or it is graded by comparing the quantity of different signs of the same sound in several words.


  1. Аbduazimov. А. Phonology and morphonology of the Uzbek language. Тashkent “Okituvchi” 1992, pages 31-32.
  2. Bozorov. О. Grading in Uzbek. Моnography.Тashkent. p 10.
  3. Bobojonov Sh. I.Islomov. Learner’s dictionary of word grading in Uzbek. Тashkent. “New edition” 2009, p 6.
  4. Nabiyeva. D.А. View of Uzbek dialectics of generality and particularity on different levels. Тashkent. Publishing house “Shark” (shareholding printing office). 2005, p 79.
  5. Аndreychikova. L. P. Phonetics of French. Тashkent, “Uzbekistan” 1992, p 43.
  6. Shigarevskaya. N. Traité de phonétique française.M., 1982 p.56
  7. Burye. E. Bases of Roman linguistics. М.И.Л, 1952, p 250

Аndizhan state University;

Accepted on November, 2019.

(Reviewer: doctor of philology D. Nabiyeva)