General Cognitive Characteristics of the Concept of Concession

M. A. Abduvaliyev, Umirzaqov Qodirjon Toxirjonovich, Ismoilov Abdurashid Isakovich,

Baxriddinov Muslimbek Muxiddinovich and Vositov Otabek Tohirjonovich

Andijan State Institute of Foreign Languages Andijan, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Cognitive, Concession, Nature, Society, Characteristics.

Abstract: The concept of accessibility is a multifaceted mental construct characterized by a complex structure that

integrates cognitive, linguistic, abstract, concrete, national, and personal elements. Examining its structure

and content provides valuable insights into understanding and systematizing the study of accessibility

relations, particularly in how they manifest within the linguistic landscape across the world. This approach

allows for a comprehensive exploration of accessibility, bridging various dimensions of human experience

and expression.

1 INTRODUCTION

The concept of the concept of concessionis a

universal unit of thought that has taken its place in the

conceptosphere of different peoples, it is an open

mental structure that reflects knowledge about the

internal and external world. The concept of barrier-

freeness, like other concepts, has its own, unique,

general and similar characteristics. However, it

should be noted that the place of the concept of the

concept of concessionin the conceptosphere, its

cognitive characteristic features, structure, content,

verbal and nonverbal characteristics, etc., have not

been the object of special research in the field of

linguoculturology, in particular linguistic

conceptology. An analysis of existing explanatory

dictionaries has shown that the concept of the concept

of concessionhas not found its full explanation and

interpretation. For example: (WTNID) defines the

concept of concessionas follows. “The concept of

concessionis an act or mistake of delaying or refusing

to comply with an expressed pressure, a verbal

demand or request”

Published by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova,

Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language In

the explanatory dictionary (4th edition, supplemented

in 2020) [27.3] "concession, i. f. 1. see to concede. 2.

To give up something in favor of another. To make

concessions. 3. figurative. A compromise solution, a

relaxation in something. No concessions against one's

convictions. 4. A discount from the appointed price

(colloquial) To sell with a concession" If it has the

following meanings, its adjective form is: concessive,

-ая,-ое. In grammar: expressing the discrepancy

between something and the existing conditions" It is

explained as. [Шведова, Ожегов 2020:808] in the

explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language

[28.69]. The concept of barrier-free has not found its

definition, in which the adjective form barrier-free is

interpreted as follows: 1. An open road without

barriers, an unobstructed courtyard. 2. without any

resistance, without obstacles. Unobstructed work. An

unobstructed subordinate clause. A subordinate

clause with an expanded meaning that contradicts the

content of the main clause, but can be an obstacle to

it [28.27]. The concept of barrier-freeness, as a

complex and multifaceted unity of thought, reflects

the relationships that have occurred, may occur, or are

unrealistic to occur in various spheres of objective

existence, in particular, nature and society. The

relationship of impermanence arises as a perception

and perception of the relationship between animals

(fauna), plants (flora), natural phenomena in nature,

people in society (women and men, youth and adults

in societies of different social views, etc.) or between

nature and society (people and natural phenomena).

Based on our observations, rigorous experiments and

a logical approach to the issue, we can distinguish the

following types of concessive relationships: person

(s) < - > person (s), person (s) < - > natural

phenomena, person (s) < - > animals (fauna), animals

< - > plants, person (s) < - > the world of plants

(flora), person (s) < - > the inner world of person (s)

< - >

the inner world of person (s), etc. Such

Abduvaliyev, M. A., Toxirjonovich, U. Q., Isakovich, I. A., Muxiddinovich, B. M. and Tohirjonovich, V. O.

General Cognitive Characteristics of the Concept of Concession.

DOI: 10.5220/0013452900004654

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Humanities Education, Law, and Social Science (ICHELS 2024), pages 733-737

ISBN: 978-989-758-752-8

733

Table 1: Disturbing situation

Disturbing situation Consensive result

Though women are angels, --- yet wedlocks the devil[4.48].

Dead or alive.

No matter how little you eat.

---

You put on teach if you’re made[13.211].

It is still their late past[1.106].

It is still their past --- you put on flash of you are made[13.211].

Even though Sultan Murad tried to

distance himself

--- the wave of the people swept him away[9.440].

He says I bowed to man with my

giant head; he says I bowed, he says I

ecame a slave,

--- but he says he was not a man[15.131].

Even if you kill me --- I don't see any way out.

Table 2: Insufficient status

Insufficient status Consensive result

Even if you didn’t саre still ---

We never could be on convеntional terms with one

another again[13.178]

Though I tried very hard --- I couldn’t finish my work in time.

Even if I help --- He couldn't finish the job.

Even if parents come --- I won't enter. [2.144].

Even though I helped him --- He was unable to finish the work.

relationships are two-part (component), and there is a

relationship of contradiction between these parts.

We propose the following definition of the

concept of barrierlessness, generalizing the views of

a number of scholars in this field: The concept of

barrierlessness is a set of knowledge in the

consciousness of a society (s) about the result of a

situation in which objects or phenomena in the

external and internal world are in a mutually

exclusive and contradictory (contrasting)

relationship, as well as positive, negative, neutral and

subjective assessments given to it.

Thus, the concept of barrierlessness essentially

consists of two mutually exclusive and opposing,

mutually negating parts. If its first element is a

barrier, then the second constituent component (or

element) consists of a state without obstacles.

2 DISCUSSIONS

The first part of the concept consists of the basic

characteristics of the action, state, process, etc., and

we distinguish two types of it, namely the disruptive

state (displacing circumstance) and deficiency

(missing circumstance).

The logical structure of the components of the

concept of accessibility also has the forms of a

concessionary state - a disruptive state or a deficient

state:

ICHELS 2024 - The International Conference on Humanities Education, Law, and Social Science

734

Table 3: Consensive result.

Disturbing situation Consensive result

No matter what comes [2.386] --- Day to days Yоrds was must go on from

even though he was suffering from

splitting headache [2.386].

--- He smiled,

Do whatever you want. --- I will not obey you,

even though the girl is seriously ill. --- The girl's hope did not fade,

Table 4: Unobstructed state.

Obstacle

---------------------

Unobstructed (state) result

action

---------------------

action

state

---------------------

situation

---------------------

situation

condition

---------------------

conditions

Logically, the element "obstacle" that constitutes

the concept of the concept of concessioncan come

before or after "unobstructed state", from this point of

view, it can have two schematic (positional) forms. If

the obstacle element of the concept embodies the

obstacle action, state, situation, condition, etc., then

the element "unobstructed state" also consists of the

above-mentioned elements.

Oppositional relations arise on the basis of action

- action - action - state; situation - state, condition -

condition, etc., and they enter into mutual affirmation

- denial, denial - affirmation, denial - denial,

affirmation - affirmation, (but with contradictory

semantics). The analysis made it possible to

determine the composition of universal cognitive

signs of the concept of impermanence. These are:

1. The concept of impermanence arises on the

basis of the opposition of two-component

impermanence relations.

2. The concept of impermanence is based on the

universal cognitive model "State - Concessional

Result".

3. The first component of the impermanence

concept consists of interfering or deficient states.

4. Among the components of the impermanence

concept, there are affirmation - denial, denial -

affirmation, sometimes denial - denial, affirmation -

affirmation, relations.

5. The contradictory relationships between the

components of the concept of barrierlessness arise as

a reflection of the relations of actions, states,

situations, and conditions that are observed and real

between objects and phenomena in the internal and

external world.

6. The concept of barrierlessness forms a reserve

of ready-made cognitive knowledge in the human

mind, which is verbalized in language and speech in

an explicit and implicit way due to the need for

communication.

7. The concept of barrierlessness is pure in content

or takes on a linguistic appearance as an additional

element of the semantics of other types of concepts

(time + barrierlessness, place + barrierlessness,

measure - degree + barrierlessness, subjectivity +

barrierlessness, attribute + barrierlessness), etc.

The concept of barrierlessness finds its own

linguistic appearance in each language. By studying

the semantics of language and speech units, by

describing the conceptosphere of a particular people,

it is possible to discover which cognitive signs of the

history of a particular people have gained importance,

which have been neglected, their place, nominative

density, national, social, collective and individual

General Cognitive Characteristics of the Concept of Concession

735

characteristics of the concept. From this point of

view, there is a need to study the units that make up

the field of impermanence.

According to the examples given above, the

description of impermanence relations is based on the

logical connection of parts of a sentence, that is, the

logical relations of inverse cause or inverse condition

and result. Such an approach is used, for example, in

Russian linguistics by N.I.Greg [8.30], F.I.Buslaeva

[18.2], V.A. It is also observed in the studies of

Bogorodisky [17.3], B.V.Lavrov [3.25],

N.S.Pospelov [26.4], A.N.Gvozdev [7.85],

N.A.Zhdanov [22.33], L.S.Estrina [30.16], etc. Otto

Erdman et al. [6.5]: recognizing the close relationship

between the relations of non-obstruction and

contradiction, support the idea that the basis of non-

obstruction relations (hereinafter -TM) is

contradiction, opposition. Also, B.V.Lavrov,

O.Erdman write about the connection of TM with

separation relations [16.14], A.V.Poutsma [10.6],

O.Erdman[5.5] about the connection of TM with

limiting relations [5.5]. It is worth noting that a

common view regarding the definition of TMs is to

contrast TMs with causal relationships.

Among the linguists who consider TMs as a

special type of conditional relations are V.A.

Bogoroditsky, B.V. Lavrov, A.F. Mikheev, G.

Wendt, G. Paul [23.10] and others. The definitions of

N.S. Pospelov, A.V. Bogomolova and A.F. Mikheev

are based on the principle of indicating inverse

conditionality. A.A. Vasil'eva [19.27] understands

the inverse conditional relation as the fact that the

presence of the thing mentioned in the subordinate

clause calls for the thing mentioned in the main clause

and, conversely, makes the thing mentioned in the

subordinate clause impossible. [Васильева, 1965:4].

Based on the existence of various types of non-

obstructive constructions, the scientist expresses the

opinion that the meaning of non-obstructiveness is

mixed with the relations of cause, effect, condition,

contradiction and separation. T.G. According to

Pechenkina [25.6], all non-impedimental sentences

are based on a contradiction, an implicit and explicit

(opposite) contradiction between two outcomes. In

other words, there are direct and reverse semantic

connections between them, which arise based on the

contradiction relationship. The contradiction

relationship connecting these two outcomes is formed

through special means of communication and creates

TMs. The scientist notes that an important semantic

component of non-impedimental sentences is a

component with the semantics of the reverse result,

which is in a contradictory relationship with the

correct result. Therefore, non-impedimental

sentences are called inversely conditioned sentences.

This relationship is understood as an external

condition, that is, a condition (obstoyatel'stvo) that

prevents the implementation of an action, and he

believes that the action will still be implemented

regardless of the fact it expresses.

R.M. Grechishnikova [25.7], in the modern

Russian language, writes: In the semantics of

interdependence, interdependence relations between

phenomena in objective existence, which are

generally reflected in our consciousness, are

internally connected. Interdependence relations arise

on the basis of the interaction of two cause-effect

relations. We represent the elements of such relations

by the symbols П1 (the first cause), П2 (its result), П2

(the second cause), and П2 (the result of this cause)

and imagine their logical structure in the form of

implications П1--- С1 and П2--- С2 [25.7].

According to the scientist, as a result of the collision

of two causes, one of them (П2) acquires a higher

level and a violation of the primary cause-effect

relation is observed. In this case, the action of the first

cause (П1) becomes insufficient for the realization of

its result. Due to the fact that the first cause (P1) has

disappeared and has not disappeared, and the second

cause (P2) causes its result (C2), the first cause and

the result of the second cause, that is, (elements P1

and C2), enter into a certain relationship with each

other. P1-C2 prevents the implementation of the

result, but it cannot sufficiently prevent the

implementation of the result C2. Therefore, the result

C2 is implemented despite the fact that the same

cause prevents its implementation. In the course of

such simple orderly cause-effect relationships,

relatively complex relations of non-obstruction arise.

There is a contradiction of affirmation and negation

between the expected result and the actually realized

result. Based on this, R.M. Grechishnikova [20.9]

distinguishes two types of TMs, namely 1) relations

of the result with insufficient grounds and the

opposite to it; 2) relations that are against the grounds.

The scientist explains these two types of

TMs as follows: “TMs of the first category are those

in which the content of the pure unobstructed part is

not sufficient to provide a sufficient basis for the

realization of the result that is opposite to the content

of the second part, and also in which the unobstructed

action in the second part is not sufficient to provide a

sufficient basis for the realization of the result that is

expected based on the content of the unobstructed

part.” The essence of the relationship of opposing

grounds is that the content of the first part is not

sufficient to provide a sufficient basis for the

ICHELS 2024 - The International Conference on Humanities Education, Law, and Social Science

736

realization of the expected result, and the content of

the second part expresses the motivation for the non-

realization of this result, that is, the opposite basis for

the realization of the expected result [20.8]. N.P.

Perfil'eva [24.6], studying the Russian language,

believes that the common feature of such

constructions is the assessment of a certain event as

an insufficient reason for the occurrence of another

event or as a negative result.

Poutsma [11.25] calls aversion an arsetive

adversative relation, and he says that it has this

property when one member expresses the opposite of

the conclusion expected from another member.

R. Kverk[12.391] writes that it is appropriate to

give the following definition as a working definition:

“...We can say that the relationship of aversion exists

between two parts of a sentence. In this case, one part

is a surprise for the other part”. The English linguist

H. Sweet [14.211] writes that “adverse adverbs are

manifestations of conditional adverbs”.

3 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the concept of accessibility is a

multidimensional mental construct with a complex

structure that combines cognitive and linguistic,

abstract and concrete, national and personal

characteristics. Studying its structure and content

makes it possible to understand and systematize the

study of the expression of accessibility relations in the

linguistic landscape of the world.

REFERENCES

Abrahams. (1971). The path of thunder (p. 106).

Asqad, M. (1973). Tanlangan asarlar, 3 tom (p. 144).

Byron. (1966). The works of Byron (p. 46).

Erdmann, O. (1876). Investigations into the Syntax of

Otfrid's Language. Part Two. The Formations of the

Noun. Halle: Publishers of the Orphanage Bookstore.

Gvozdev, A. N. (1952). Essays on the stylistics of the

Russian language uText. Moscow: Academy of

Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR.

Ipsen, G. (1924). The Ancient Orient and the Indo-

Europeans. Festschrift for W. Streitberg. Heidelberg,

30-45.

Lavrov, B. V. (1963). Conditional and concessive sentences

in Old Russian. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk

SSSR.

Lavrov, B. V. (1963). Conditional and concessive sentences

in Old Russian. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk

SSSR.

Oybek. (1985). Navoiy. Toshkent: O'qituvchi.

Poutsma, X. (1905). A grammar of late modern English for

the use of continental especially Dutch students,

Section: Composite sentence. Noordhoff-Groningen.

Quirk, A. (1982). A university grammar of English.

Moskva: Vysshaya shkola.

Show. (1972). Collected plays with their prefaces (p. 211).

Svit, X. (1971). Unconditional clauses are forms of

conditional clauses. (p. 225).

Tog‘ay, M. (2009). The stars burn forever. (p. 131).

Buslaeva, F. I. (1881). Historical grammar of the Russian

language. (5th ed.). Moscow: Tip. T. Ris.

Vasilyeva, A. A. (1965). Syntactic methods of expressing

concessiveness in German (AKD) (p. 27). Leningrad.

Grechishnikova, R. M. (1971). Complex sentences with

phraseological means of expressing concessive

relations in modern Russian (Kand. diss.).Leningrad.

N.A. Zhdanov. (2014). English Grammar (p. 510).

Moscow: Kniga po Trebovaniyu.

Paul, G. (1960). Principles of the History of Language.

Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoy literatury.

Perfilieva, O. (2020). SYNCRETISM OF

INTRODUCTORY UNITS WITH THE SEMANTICS

OF "I THINK". Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State

Pedagogical University.

Pechenkina, T. G. (1976). The syntactic category of

concessiveness and forms of its expression in the

Russian literary language of the second half of the 19th

century (Author's Abstract of Dissertation). Leningrad.

Pospelov, N. S. (1997). Thoughts on Russian grammar:

Selected works. Moscow: Librokon.

S.I. Ozhegov, & N.Yu. Shvedova. (1992). Only dictionary

of the Russian language. Moscow.

From the explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language.

(2020). Toshkent.

Estrina, L. S. (1970). Concessive constructions formed by

pronominal words with the part ni in the modern

Russian literary language (AKD). Kazan.

General Cognitive Characteristics of the Concept of Concession

737