The distinction between realis and irrealis is a fundamental concept in linguistic typology, particularly in the study of modality and verb systems. While this phenomenon has been widely explored in many world languages, it remains an understudied area in Uzbek linguistics. In English, the grammatical and semantic markers of realis and irrealis are relatively well-documented, especially in relation to mood, tense, and modality. In contrast, the Uzbek language lacks a clearly defined framework for categorizing verbal constructions as realis or irrealis, despite the presence of such expressions in everyday speech and written texts.

This paper aims to examine the lexical-semantic and structural features of linguistic units that represent realis and irrealis phenomena in English and Uzbek. The study draws attention to how certain verb affixes and syntactic constructions in Uzbek may serve as indicators of reality or non-reality, even though they have not been traditionally analyzed as such. By adopting S. Cristofaro’s classification of realis and irrealis into Type A and Type B categories, the paper proposes a new approach to analyzing the interaction between verb morphology, semantics, and discourse functions in both languages.

A comparative analysis reveals that while English tends to mark irrealis more explicitly through modal verbs and subjunctive forms, Uzbek relies heavily on contextual and morphological cues. The investigation further explores the grammaticalization of tense and mood markers that overlap with realis/irrealis meanings, highlighting the multifunctional nature of verbal morphology in Uzbek. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how reality and non-reality are encoded across typologically distinct languages, and provides insights for future research in modality and verbal typology [Timberlake 2007: 280-333].

So far, realis/irrealis has not been studied separately as a grammatical category in the Uzbek language. However, by comparing the existing grammatical descriptions, we can conclude that the realist category is expressed in the Uzbek language. This phenomenon is associated with the semantic realization of a number of morphemes in verb formation. However, until now they were considered only part of the idiomatic complex of morphemes expressing the content of tense and other categories. It is clear from the widely researched material that the use of the concept of irrealis, firstly, is more effective when it is focused on defining the accuracy of reality, and secondly, when it comes to analysis of tense and other verb-specific categories [Elliot 2000: 55-90]. When describing each language, special attention should be paid to the interaction of the category realis/irrealis with the categories of time, space, and mood. In this regard, we found it necessary to divide realis and irrealis into type A and type B groups based on their lexical and grammatical forms, based on the classification of S. Cristoforo.

In this case, type A suffixes are sometimes associated with the specific identification of an action or its object. Let's look at examples: Bora-bora ko‘chaning betidagi uning qiya tomi oppoq bo‘lib qoldi. Keyin asta-sekin ko‘chaning o‘zi ham oqara boshladi (O‘.Xoshimov “Qalbingga quloq sol”, 5-bet); Keyingi oylarda u to‘lishgan, salobatli bo‘lib qolgan, ko‘zlarida baxtiyorlik nuri barq urib turardi (O‘.Xoshimov “Sevgi qissalari” 222-bet).

Of course, both of these sentences describe a real action that took place. In the first sentence, the expression “ko‘chaning betidagi” served to identify the object “qiya tom", while the clause “oppoq bo‘lib qoldi” indicated that the real action had taken place. In the second sentence, the real event is only reflected in the predicates “to‘lishgan”, “salobatli bo‘lib qolgan”, and “barq urib turardi”. In this case, the suffix “- gan” can be considered a grammatical form expressing realis. That is why we use the suffix “- gan” as a realis indicator for type A. However, when using Type B units, the movement itself is not the focus. In this regard, we draw attention to the importance of identifying the difference between placing/removing the predicate in the spotlight, its correlation with the increase/decrease in the level of demand, and the natural semantic basis for the emergence of a contrast between realis and irrealis. For example, “Zoyirjon non-choy qilib yotgan shekilli, kleyonka yopilgan stolda non burdalari, parraklab to‘g‘ralgan kolbasa, qand yotardi” (Xoshimov O‘. Sevgi qissalari. 11-bet). The use of the adverb “shekilli” in this sentence creates a contradiction between the real and unreal nature of the event, reducing the level of realis. However, the separate predicate meaning “yotardi” describes reality in its real form. In this case, the tense suffix “- ar” is used as the main grammatical tool.

1. When expressing real reality, it is very important that the two types of predicates are strictly separated in the paradigm from other categories of verbs. This is primarily due to the affirmative form of predicates and the fact that affirmative statements refer to real reality [Danielsen, Terhart 2016: 97–120]. The real expression of reality occurs in sentences with a type A tense (present continuous), habitually repeated events, and narrative-informative content. Type B of realis encompasses hypothetical past tense, future tense, and modal relations.

Table 1.

As can be seen from the table, the present tense in affirmative sentences is actually an indicator of the realist category. Category A forms a predication describing real actions, while linguistic means in category B form an imaginary, unrealized action. Hence, the indices of any hypothetical statement B are determined by the indices of the hypothetical forms. Thus, the basis of this system is verb-related units [Michael 2014: 251-288]. The preservation of the multifunctionality of the verb category in the Uzbek language, on the one hand, their realis/irrealis indicators, and on the other hand, their indicators of tense, aspect, person, and proportion, allows us to study the methods of forming the grammatical category of interest to us depending on the content of the sentence.

The study of Uzbek verb systems, in which the realis category is developed, is of particular interest. The fact is that, despite the fact that the categories realis/irrealis in the Uzbek language have been relatively poorly studied, they allow us to find evidence for some of our assumptions about the methods of formation of these categories and the morphological means by which they are expressed.

Verb systems with realis/irrealis categories are perhaps a novelty for the Uzbek language in terms of research, and their occurrence in different units creates the opportunity to study these categories independently. This can be assessed by several signs:

- firstly, the expression of the realist has grammatical indicators. The meaning of the verb changes through the development of tense forms in the verb system, the addition of various affixes and suffixes;

- secondly, lexical units that describe and define real reality have developed in the Uzbek language. These lexical units and combinations perform a deictic function in relation to real reality;

- thirdly, the indicators of the realis category are closely related to the indicators of other verb categories, in addition to tense and modality, and it is necessary to determine this relationship and generalize all linguistic means denoting realis;

- fourthly, the English and Uzbek languages ​​under study have different structures in terms of semantic systems, and the focus is on determining the importance of various semantic components that form semantic opposition based on the formation of the realist category in different languages, and identifying their different aspects.

One of the methods for identifying linguistic devices that form realis/irrealis in English and Uzbek is to determine the secondary semantization of syntactic contrasts associated with the syntactic difference between independent/dependent forms or direct and indirect forms.

The meaning of the irrealis, which is considered an expression of the person-number characteristic in the Uzbek language, is not always associated with just one morpheme. However, the suffixes of the B series are always strictly related to a specific tonal characteristic of the base, namely the high tone. This shows the proportionality of both phonetic and suffixal suffixes. At the same time, it should be noted that this is not a matter of morphological diversity, since the type of suffixes depends not on the tone of the base, but on the type of suffixes of the base. This case is considered to be related to the suffix -sa, which applies to all persons. For instance, “Mening yo‘qlab kelganimni ko‘rsa, dalda bo‘ladigan biron so‘z aytsam, zoraki darmon bo‘lsa, deb kutdim” (Аbdulla Qahhor, “Ming bir jon” 52-bet). In this example, the expression of the suffix “- sa” irrealis to represent an unreal reality is not only characterized by this suffix, but also by the phonetic stress it places on it. Of course, the suffix “- sa” not only indicates a modal attitude towards the future, but also the content of grammatical inclination. However, modality or inclination relations do not cover all levels of irrealis. Therefore, many linguists are in favor of adopting a universal and general term [Timberlake 2007: 280-333]. Because languages ​​differ from each other not only structurally or morphologically, but also in their methods of analysis and aspects of expressing reality. For example, the Uzbek subjunctive mood category differs from the English subjunctive mood in that it reflects the expression of events in time. Compare: “If I had known what awaited me, I would have never entered that dark forest.” (J.Tolkien. The Hobbit. 98-page); Katta bo‘lsam deyman, o‘zimga-o‘zim, men ham odamlarga yaxshilik qilaman, kasalxonada yotganlardan ko‘ngil so‘rab turaman (Ahmad A‘zam. O‘zim bilan o‘zim. 12-bet).