220

Мақолада социолингвистика тилнинг энг юқори ижтимоий табиати ҳақида ягона ва ҳал қилувчи таҳлил билан пайдо бўлган ва шу вақтдан бошлаб, ҳозирги кунга қадар амалда фанлараро муносабати туфайли унинг асосларини мустаҳкамлаётгани таҳлил қилинган.

  • Internet ҳавола
  • DOI
  • UzSCI тизимида яратилган сана 08-09-2022
  • Ўқишлар сони 0
  • Нашр санаси 02-07-2021
  • Мақола тилиO'zbek
  • Саҳифалар сони203-207
Ўзбек

Мақолада социолингвистика тилнинг энг юқори ижтимоий табиати ҳақида ягона ва ҳал қилувчи таҳлил билан пайдо бўлган ва шу вақтдан бошлаб, ҳозирги кунга қадар амалда фанлараро муносабати туфайли унинг асосларини мустаҳкамлаётгани таҳлил қилинган.

Русский

В статье анализируется возникновение  социолингвистики  с единственным и решающим анализом высшей социальной природы языка и с тех пор, вплоть до настоящего времени, практически укрепляет свои основы благодаря междисциплинарному подходу.
 

English

The article analyzes emergence of  sociolinguistics with the only and decisive analysis of the higher social nature of language and since then, up to the present time, has practically strengthened its foundations owing to an interdisciplinary approach.
 

№ Муаллифнинг исми Лавозими Ташкилот номи
1 Sabirova N.K. 1 O'zMU
№ Ҳавола номи
1 1. Apte, M.L. 2001. Field Methods: Ethnographic. In Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 772–775.Oxford: Elsevier.
2 2. Baxter, J. 2010. Discourse-analytic approaches to text and talk. In Research Methods in Linguistics, L. Litosseliti (ed.), 117–137. London: Continuum.
3 3. Bucholtz, M. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 398–416. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00232.
4 4. Creese, A. 2010. Linguistic ethnography. In Research Methods in Linguistics, L. Litosseliti (ed.), 138– 154. London: Continuum.
5 5. Currie, H. 1952. A projection of sociolinguistics: The relationship of speech to social status. Southern Speech Journal 18: 28–37. DOI: 10.1080/10417945209371247.
6 6. Figueroa, E. 1994. Sociolinguistic Metatheory. Oxford: Pergamon.
7 7. Fishman J. 1972. The sociology of language; an interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
8 8. Hazen, K. 2001. Field methods in modern dialect and variation studies. In Mesthrie (ed.), 776– 779.
9 9. Hymes, D.H. 1974. Anthropology and sociology. An Overview. Current Trends in Linguistics 12: 1445– 1475. Linguistic Anthropology in Society. American Anthropologist 76: 785-798.
10 10. Labov, W. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (eds), 28–66. Englewoods Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
11 11. Labov, W. 1975b. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In the Scope of American Linguistics, R. Austerlitz (ed.), 77–113. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.
12 12. Robins, R.H. 1964. General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. London: Longman (3rd. edition 1980).
13 13. Shuy, R.W. 1984. The decade ahead for applied sociolinguistics. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45: 101–111.
14 14. Tagliamonte, S.A. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511801624
15 15. Trudgill, P.J. 1983b. On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
16 16. Trudgill, P.J. 1978. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and sociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, P.J. Trudgill (ed.), 1–18. London: Edward Arnold.
Кутилмоқда