Countless humans have lived on Earth—those who formed the past, those in the present, and those who will shape the future. Every person thinks, learns, and acts differently from one another. The settings of the human mind are all personalized by the environment in which one grows up, the micro-details of their life, and so on. Man Is the source of all thoughts, religions, and political systems (Democracy, Authoritarianism, and Totalitarianism).
All the destruction that has happened in the world, the progress and the good that have occurred, the industrial revolutions, the inventions, and the books that have been written are the work of humans. All good and evil have been created by us, humans; the first spark of thought was ignited by our minds, and we put it into action. May we, as humans, be the cause of goodness in this black-and-white world, and may we allow the white to prevail over the darkness. But let us remember: to change the world, we must first turn the darkness that has engulfed our own being into light.
The Body
How can everything be so cold and soulless? Lack of purpose creates a lack of motivation, and a lack of motivation makes the mind ill and depressed. What in this world can make us happy and purposeful? Money, wealth, fame, or a cup of coffee, a little water, and a book or a film to watch? I do not know If these are related or not, but when you do not feel yourself, it is as if you have no existence. Truly, what are we doing here? Do we have any impact on this gray and black world?
Humans are slaves to other humans; great pyramids of people who are slaves to others. This is the system of today’s societies. With every step we take, we touch the darkness and the dust that has surrounded us all with our entire being. Routine and a lack of creativity have become natural for people. If someone wants to be different, people cannot tolerate them. Who implemented this system in the world? Have the great capitalists forced people to be like robots? Have they promoted those without talent—who reach positions through buffoonery and mockery—to create entertainments so that people see no need for any change In themselves?
I fear the day I want to do something, but the result fails for completely absurd reasons. Fear sometimes makes us feel terrible for any reason. Fear is like a monster that we always want to avoid facing, lest that monster destroys us. Most people consider themselves free of fear, but no one is honest about this. Even the bravest people have a very deep fear hidden in a corner of their heart. Those who run away from their fear instead of accepting and living with It will eventually, as I said, be swallowed by fear like a monster.
How is happiness created within us? By gaining money, wealth, status, or eating our favorite food? Note that if a person has all of these but feels empty, how can the issue of happiness and being glad return to their mental and intellectual state? The more humble and educated a person is, the more their sense of happiness can differ from someone who gambles and spends their day drinking alcohol.
I do not know what is right or wrong. What is life? Where is our goal? What does our nationality define within us? What identity do races and ethnicities give us? These only form part of the confusion of our minds. Why should someone be in the best place on this planet while another is in the worst? How and in what way was this boundary between individuals created? Where did grudge, envy, hypocrisy, and narcissism come from? Certainly, even the greatest scientists do not have correct answers to these questions and give cliché answers like: “These were all created by God…”
Very well, most of us believe in a higher power, but who Is there to answer us directly? True, if we think correctly, we ourselves are responsible for finding an answer for ourselves. Now, this answer will be determined according to our way of thinking and the goal we believe in. That is, all answers can be correct, but truly, which one Is “more” correct?
Master’s student, Namangan State Pedagogical Institute
Introduction
The development of society, science, and technology significantly expands the functional potential of language. Language serves not only as a means of communication but also as an essential tool for expressing scientific thinking. In particular, the necessity to present ideas clearly, consistently, and logically in scientific activity has led to the formation of the scientific style. The scientific style differs from other functional styles of language in its objectivity, logical coherence, precision, and generalization. These features are most clearly manifested in sentence structure.In scientific discourse, every idea is based on specific evidence, concepts, or theoretical foundations. Therefore, logical consistency and grammatical accuracy prevail over emotionality, imagery, or subjective attitudes. This imposes specific requirements on syntactic structure.
Sentences used in scientific texts are usually complex and are interconnected through logical relations such as cause–effect, explanation, comparison, condition, and conclusion. As a result, a chain of ideas is formed within the text, facilitating the reader’s comprehension of scientific information.The issue of sentence structure in scientific style is closely related to syntax as a branch of linguistics.
Syntactic means ensure the logical organization of information, the clear expression of relationships between concepts, and the integrity of overall meaning in scientific texts. In particular, the standard word order of sentence elements, frequent use of complex sentences with subordinate clauses, prevalence of nominalized forms, and use of passive voice verbs are considered key features of scientific syntax.
In addition, sentences in scientific style often have a generalized character. That is, they are oriented not toward a specific person but toward phenomena and laws. Therefore, personal references are limited, predicates are mostly used in the present tense, and ideas are presented objectively. These features ensure the objectivity of scientific discourse.
Such characteristics of sentence construction reflect the mechanism of expressing scientific thinking through language.This article analyzes the syntactic features of sentence construction typical of the scientific style, examines word order, the use of complex sentences, and logical cohesive devices through examples.
Typical sentence models used in scientific texts are also discussed, revealing their role in delivering information clearly and consistently. Studying these issues is important for developing scientific writing skills, improving scientific speech culture, and enriching syntactic research in linguistics.
Literature Review
The issue of scientific style and its syntactic features has been widely studied in linguistics, primarily at the intersection of functional stylistics and syntax. Research on grammatical, lexical, and stylistic features of scientific discourse provides a significant theoretical basis for understanding the structure of scientific texts.
In Uzbek linguistics, the classification of functional styles and the distinctive features of scientific style have been examined by scholars such as N. Mahmudov, A. Nurmonov, Sh. Rahmatullayev, and H. Doniyorov. These studies identify precision, logical coherence, conciseness, and objectivity as the main characteristics of scientific style.
Scholars emphasize that the selection of linguistic units in scientific discourse serves to convey content clearly and objectively, which is especially evident in sentence construction.From a syntactic perspective, the structure of scientific texts has been extensively discussed in the works of A. G‘ulomov, M. Asqarova, and B. O‘rinboyev.
They analyze word order, the use of compound and complex sentences, and the role of subordinate constructions in expressing logical relations. In particular, they note that complex sentences are more frequently used than simple ones in scientific discourse, especially to express cause–effect, condition, and explanatory relations.
Scientific style syntax has also been widely studied in Russian and international linguistics. Scholars such as V. V. Vinogradov, M. N. Kozhina, and I. R. Galperin analyze scientific discourse as a functional style and identify syntactic means that ensure objectivity and logical coherence. According to them, scientific texts are oriented toward phenomena rather than individuals, which leads to the frequent use of impersonal constructions, passive voice forms, nominalizations, and terminological expressions.
Recent studies within text linguistics focus on text syntax, discourse analysis, and communicative-pragmatic approaches. In these studies, scientific discourse is analyzed not only at the sentence level but also at the text level, considering theme–rheme relations, information flow, and cohesive devices. As a result, sentence construction in scientific style is interpreted in close connection with textual coherence.
Research Methodology
This article employs diachronic analysis, comparative analysis, semantic analysis, and stylistic analysis methods.
Analysis and Results
The analysis of sentence construction in scientific style focuses on syntactic models typical of scientific texts, word order, and the use of logical cohesive devices. The results indicate that sentence structure in scientific discourse significantly differs from other functional styles and primarily serves to convey information clearly, consistently, and objectively.
Features of Simple Sentences
In scientific texts, simple sentences mainly serve to define concepts, clarify notions, and express general conclusions. Such sentences are concise, grammatically complete, and free from emotional elements. The following models are frequently used:
Definitional sentences: A phoneme is the smallest meaningful unit of language.
Classificatory sentences: Sentences are divided into simple and complex sentences according to their structure.
Generalizing sentences: Scientific discourse is based on precision and logical coherence. In these sentences, the subject is typically expressed by a noun or nominalized form, while the predicate appears in the present tense, ensuring generality and permanence of scientific statements.
Dominance of Complex Sentences
The analysis shows that complex sentences are more frequent than simple ones in scientific style due to the need to express logical relations such as cause–effect, condition, explanation, and comparison.
Common models include: Cause–effect: Language units are interconnected as a system because each element is a component of the overall structure.
Conditional:If sentence elements are arranged correctly, clarity of thought is ensured.
Explanatory constructions:Scientific style is a form of language used to express scientific information.
These structures ensure coherence and enable step-by-step development of ideas.
Word Order
Scientific style follows standard grammatical word order. Inversion is rare, as it may cause ambiguity. Observations show that:the subject usually appears at the beginning of the sentence;modifiers precede the head noun;the predicate typically occurs at the end.
Example:The syntactic structure of a scientific text ensures logical coherence.This model functions as a standard syntactic pattern in scientific discourse.
Passive Voice and Impersonal Constructions
Scientific style tends to focus on processes and phenomena rather than individuals. Therefore, the following are widely used:passive voice forms; impersonal sentences; nominalized constructions.
Examples:This phenomenon has been widely studied in linguistics.The following methods were used in the study.These constructions enhance objectivity.
Logical Connectors
Sentences in scientific texts are connected by specific cohesive devices such as therefore, thus, as a result, first, second, in particular, that is. These elements facilitate logical flow and reader comprehension.
General Findings
The analysis leads to the following conclusions:
Sentence construction in scientific style strictly follows logical coherence. Complex sentences serve as the main syntactic tool of scientific discourse. Standard word order predominates, with minimal inversion.
Passive and impersonal constructions ensure objectivity. Logical connectors contribute to textual cohesion.
Overall, sentence construction in scientific style reflects the close relationship between language and logical thinking, serving as an effective mechanism for precise and systematic transmission of scientific information.
Eshmatova Charos is one of the most inquisitive students, deeply studying linguistic theory, and a holder of international certificates. She was born on August 18, 2007 in Uzbekistan. She is studying at Denau Institute of Entrepreneurship and Pedagogy Fields of activity: in depth of study the Uzbek language, gaining detailed knowledge of Turkish languages, and Early Achievements and Educational Path. She has obtained a national certificate in Uzbek language and literature (B level) and holds several international certificates. She graduated from secondary school with excellent grades and achieved notable positions in several academic subject Olympics.
So may I someday, sitting at play in my little unknown courtyard.
-A line from the poem “The Last Romantic” by John Ashbery.
May I, I pray,
someday, say TIME.
My mouth open, but breath stopped.
No air twisted by my language.
Not the word, but the event. TIME.
Its meaning will be conveyed by rote memory
directly into the minds of the people. TIME.
My name will be undead.
From then on, my name will be foreknown
by every baby born, by every deathbed rosary grip,
as the philosopher who knew how to tongue the name of Saturn
that no mortal had ever pronounced before. TIME.
The soundless rote memory of each molecule
and flexed in crystalline chirality. The turn of a closing sarcophagus jar,
screwed into the body of a helical protein. TIME.
The cousin of those twins, Heat and Pressure,
who would hear my call, and would answer,
by vibrating the hollow bones of birds, BIRDSONG TRIUMPHANT,
in simultaneous exultation.
Their talons on the ledges of the rows of ossuaries
that line the psychic riverbanks of the city.
Saturn returns a kiss. Lovingly.
Placing his expressionless lips on the forehead of my skull.
Willard van Dyke, Funnels, 1932
Photo in Phaidon, The Photo Book, p. 127.
If one is intake and the other is output,
they circulate ironies.
On the right, boater hat straight to the sky,
one attentively waits on an arrival.
On the left, face bending the first,
a gossip attends only to its companion.
Sky setting for HVAC,
Denver periscope and snorkel extended in ether,
either one pipe-fitted to purpose,
differently, anatomically differentiated,
completely interchangeable.
Below the photographer’s frame
there has to be a maze, anatomically has to be,
in architecture, on a rooftop, a circulatory system
and unseen rhythms of building inspectors,
repairers, roofers, breathers, odors,
all breathing in timetables, calendars, municipal bylaws,
chartable but not really charted except by Willard van Dye
who looked up to a sunless cloudless unbirdened sky
without the draw of church steeple or billboard or neon light
and the shadow of the pie-plate topper on the straight one
indicates the Sun it shining in its face and on van Dyke’s back
and from this angle he must be lying down on the roof,
Willard’s camera as far away from the base of the Funnels
as inches are between the soles of his feet and his eyes
the hypotenuse thereof ridden by the focus of his lens –
the only straight line of the entire picture
that is not hooked by a corner and recycled forever in circles.
Canadian farmer Terry Trowbridge’s poems have appeared in CV2, The New Quarterly, Dalhousie Review, Nashwaak Review, The Great Lakes Review, Pamenar Press, The Ex-Puritan, Studies in Social Justice, and ~200 more places. He is grateful to the Ontario Arts Council for funding during the polycrisis.
