СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ ЛЕКСИКО-СЕМАТИЧЕСКИХ И СИНТАКСИЧЕСКИХ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ ТАДЖИКСКОГО СОЮЗА АММО/BUT И ЕГО АНГЛИЙСКИХ ЭКВИВАЛЕНТОВ

The study of conjunctions, as fundamental operators of coherence and logical relation, occupies a central place in understanding the architecture of any language. Within the realm of contrastive linguistics, the analysis of equivalent conjunctive items across typologically distinct languages — such as Persian-based Tajik and Germanic English — offers profound insights into not only grammatical systems but also into cognitive and rhetorical patterns inherent to respective speech communities

Despite its functional centrality, a detailed, corpus-driven comparative analysis of аммо against its most frequent English counterpart, but, remains an under-researched area, particularly in recent scholarship. Existing studies often treat conjunctions within broader grammatical descriptions, lacking the focused, empirical scrutiny required to unveil subtle lexico-semantic and syntactic asymmetries that pose significant challenges in translation and second language acquisition

1.1. Research Objectives

The aims of the article are to:

- systematically identify and categorize the lexico-semantic functions of аммо in a canonical Tajik literary text;

- analyze the syntactic behavior and positional distribution of аммо in comparison to but;

- dwell on the strategies employed in translating аммо into English, mapping its functional spectrum onto not only but but also other adversative and contrastive markers.

1.2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

The analysis is situated within the framework of functional contrastive linguistics

1.3. Methodology and Data

The primary data source is Sadriddin Ayni's novel “Ghulomon” (2019), a cornerstone of modern Tajik literature. A representative corpus of 150 instances of аммо was extracted. Each instance, along with its co-text, was manually aligned with its corresponding passage from an authoritative English translation (“The Slaves”). This parallel corpus forms the empirical basis for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The method involves:

1. Functional tagging of each аммо instance.

2. Syntactic description of its host sentence.

3. Recording the English translation equivalent.

4. Comparative analysis of matched pairs.

2.1. Corpus Compilation

A digital version of “Ghulomon” was used to extract all instances of the conjunction аммо. The search was conducted using simple string matching, followed by manual verification to exclude false positives (e.g., homographs). Each occurrence was assigned a unique ID, and a text window of 2–3 sentences before and after was captured to preserve context.

2.2. Analytical Procedures

1. Lexico-Semantic Analysis: Each instance was classified based on a modified taxonomy of adversative relations (updated for Tajik semantics)

- Direct Opposition: Contrasting two factual propositions.

- Concessive: Acknowledging a point to counter it with a stronger one ("Yes, but...").

- Corrective: Replacing or rectifying a previous statement.

- Discourse-Contrastive: Shifting to a new topic or speaker turn.

- Emphatic/Intensifying: Used for rhetorical emphasis rather than logical contrast.

2. Syntactic Analysis: The following parameters were recorded for each Tajik sentence and its English counterpart:

- Position of the conjunction (sentence-initial, between clauses, post-comma, etc.).

- Structure of linked elements (clauses, phrases, sentences).

- Presence of ellipsis or contraction in the English version.

3. Translation Analysis: The English equivalent for each аммо was recorded. Frequencies of but, however, yet, although, while, and, and zero-translation (parataxis) were calculated. The pragmatic success of each translation was evaluated contextually.

3.1. Quantitative Overview

From the sampled corpus of “Ghulomon” аммо appeared with a frequency of approximately 4.2 instances per 1000 words. In the English translation, but was the direct equivalent in 68% of cases. Other equivalents included: however (12%), yet (8%), and (5%), while (3%), and omission or restructuring (4%).

3.2. Lexico-Semantic Functions with Illustrative Examples from “Ghulomon”

3.2.1. Direct Opposition

This is the most common function, presenting a clear contradiction between two statements.

For example: Ман ба ҳамаи ин корҳо тайёр ҳастам, аммо манро ба ин сафар намебаранд

Designing on the premise of the above-mentioned sentence one can assert that аммо is directly translated as but denoting a straightforward contrast between the subject's readiness and the others' action. The syntactic structure is perfectly mirrored.

3.2.2. Concessive Adversativity

The relevant Tajik conjunction often follows a concessive premise, introducing a more compelling argument.

For example: Ҳа, ман мефаҳмам, ки шумо хонандагон ва донишмандони бузургед, аммо дар ин масъала хато мекунед

In the course of translating we have chosen however, which, while adversative carries a more formal and discourse-organizing tone than but, perhaps to mirror the rhetorical weight of the Tajik аммо in this polite yet firm objection.

3.2.3. Corrective Function

Аммо can introduce a statement that rectifies a previous misconception or imprecise wording.

For example: Вақте ки ба деҳа ворид шудем, ягон чоравез надидем. Аммо, дур дар канори дарё, чанд сар гов дида мешуд

Apparently, the usage of yet in English effectively captures the corrective nuance, implying contrary to what you might conclude from the first statement. The Tajik аммо is in sentence-initial position, separated by a comma, emphasizing this thematic shift — a pattern less common for stand-alone English but.

3.3. Syntactic Peculiarities

3.3.1. Positional Distribution

Tajik: Аммо frequently occupies the absolute initial position of a sentence (approx. 40% of cases), acting as a discourse marker to signal a major contrastive turn in the narrative or argument. This is less typical for English but in formal written prose, where it is more commonly clause-medial.

English: But demonstrates high integration, often forming contracted constructions like but he didn't, whereas Tajik maintains a more analytic structure: аммо ӯ накард.

3.3.2. Ellipsis and Coordination

English often employs ellipsis after but (He was tired, but [he was] determined). In the Tajik corpus, such ellipsis is less frequent; the clause following аммо tends to be more fully articulated.

The findings substantiate the hypothesis that аммо and but, while functional equivalents, are not isomorphic. Their differences are traceable to broader typological and discursive norms.

4.1. Semantic Scope and Translation Asymmetry

The semantic field of аммо appears to overlap with, but is not entirely covered by, but. As seen in the examples, аммо can drift into the functional territory of however (for thematic contrast) and yet (for corrective or surprising opposition). This supports the notion that language-specific conjunctions occupy unique positions on a semantic map of contrastive relations

4.2. Syntax and Information Structure

The propensity of аммо for sentence-initial position aligns with findings on Persian/Tajik information structure, where new or contrastive topics are often fronted

4.3. Pragmatic Weight and Cultural Discourse

The use of аммо in “Ghulomon” often carries a weight of logical, social, or moral contradiction reflective of the novel's thematic core —the clash between oppression and dignity. Its consistent use in debates and internal monologues marks it as a tool for ideological and intellectual confrontation. The English equivalents sometimes soften or formalize this pragmatic force, a phenomenon observed in cross-cultural translation where “pragmatic adjustment” is necessary to meet target-language norms

4.4. Implications for Translation and Language Teaching

For translators, a mechanical substitution of аммо with but risks flattening the rhetorical texture of the Tajik source text. Awareness of the corrective, thematic-shifting, and emphatic potentials of аммо is crucial. For Tajik learners of English (and vice versa), instruction must move beyond simple equivalence, highlighting the syntactic constraints (e.g., caution with sentence-initial but in academic writing) and the availability of a richer repertoire of contrastive markers (however, nevertheless, whereas, yet) to express nuances captured by аммо.

Adducing the results of the conducted comparative analysis, one can come to the conclusion that the intricate relationship between the Tajik conjunction аммо and its English equivalents, primarily but is clearly observed. While a systematic consideration of data from “Ghulomon” it has been demonstrated that аммо possesses a distinct lexico-semantic profile, often requiring translation not by a single equivalent but by a set of adversative-contrastive items chosen based on context. Syntactically, аммо shows a stronger discourse-marking function through sentence-initial positioning, whereas but exhibits greater syntactic integration and versatility in forming contracted structures.

The study contributes to the under-researched field of Tajik-English contrastive linguistics and provides a methodology for fine-grained conjunction analysis. It underscores the importance of corpus-based, context-sensitive approaches in understanding grammatical items that sit at the intersection of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Future research should expand the corpus to include modern media and spoken Tajik to chart diachronic and register-based variations in the use of аммо.