In the functional-semantic approach to language, the connection between lexical and morphological levels is examined in an integrated way. When analyzing aspectual phenomena within this framework, focus is given not only to the aktionsart (boundedness or unboundedness) meaning of the verb serving as the predicate but also to how other linguistic elements in the context affect the predicate. 

From a grammatical perspective, boundedness is seen as part of the verb's lexical meaning, related to its word-formation structure, indicating actions within a specific tense—such as completeness, result, single occurrence, or initiation [Koneko, Petruxina, 2004: 20-21]. Meanwhile, S.G. Tatevosov argues that boundedness or unboundedness is not inherent in the verb’s semantics alone but depends on the verb’s arguments or adverbials in context. He notes that no verbs are inherently bounded or unbounded; instead, boundedness emerges at the verb level, often determined by the patient or object in the sentence—for example, the verb "to eat." When the verb is combined with a non-count noun as the patient, it exhibits unboundedness, as in the sentences: He ate soup for ten minutes/in ten minutes. However, when paired with a singular countable noun, the verb takes on a bounded quality, exemplified by: He ate an apple in ten minutes/for ten minutes (S. Tatevosov 2005: 203).

As an advocate of the dual-direction approach, S.G. Tatevosov does not categorize verbs strictly as bounded or unbounded based on their aktionsart traits. Instead, he relates boundedness and unboundedness more broadly to the predicate itself. He explains that unbounded predicates are characterized by their additivity, a feature applicable to both processes and states. Additionally, states and processes share divisibility, which firstly reflects intensity of meaning and secondly involves defining the smallest measurable unit of a state. In this framework, unbounded verb predicates fall into two types, corresponding respectively to nominal predicates, indefinite plurals, and uncountable classes. Each unbounded predicate contrasts with a paired bounded predicate, which differs notably in its lack of additivity and indivisibility—qualities opposite to those of unbounded predicates. (Tatevosov, 2005: 124)

In linguistics, F.A. Ganiyev was the first to introduce the categories of action flow or manner of action into the structure of complex verbal forms (сложновербал) in the Tatar language. Moreover, Ganiyev extensively explores the concepts of boundedness and unboundedness in his monograph, treating these phenomena in Tatar as lexical-semantic in nature. When analyzing analytic verb forms, he observes: “The boundedness or unboundedness of a compound verb depends on the auxiliary verb. If the auxiliary verb is bounded, then the compound verb is bounded; if the auxiliary verb is unbounded, the compound verb is also unbounded” [Ganiyev, 1963: 377-382].

In contemporary linguistics, particularly in aspectology, the investigation of verbs through the lens of boundedness and the influence of German linguistic research is especially important. Within Turkology, significant studies have compared meanings expressed by compound verb forms comprising a leading verb in the participle form combined with an auxiliary verb, focusing on their aspectual properties. Based on this, A.A. Kholodovich’s proposal that the classification of verbs into bounded and unbounded categories should be universal and cross-linguistic is considered appropriate [Kholodovich, 1979: 138-139]. It is recognized that Turkic languages lack a fully grammaticalized synthetic aspectual category (vid), making it promising to pay particular attention to the role analytic verb forms play in expressing relevant lexical-semantic and grammatical meanings.   In the Uzbek language, the manner of action expressed by a verb constitutes a significant linguistic phenomenon with notable aspectual relevance. Following the preceding discussions, it becomes clear that manner of action forms cannot be classified purely as aspectual categories; that is, they do not belong to the grammatical (morphological) category of aspect. Nonetheless, from a functional-semantic perspective, the manner of action expressed through analytic verb forms is encompassed within the domain of aspect, distinguishing pure specific aspect from aktionsart (or lexical aspect).

V.G. Guzev highlights that this phenomenon displays distinctive features in Turkic languages. In his monograph titled "Verb," he advocates for the separation of aspectual meanings primarily into vid (specific aspect—специфический аспект), followed by a distinction into aktionsart meanings. [Guzev, 1990: 132]

In analyzing aspectual meanings in Uzbek, it is crucial to determine the most effective approach. A. Khojiyev categorizes nine types of auxiliary verbs in Uzbek according to their semantic meaning, referring to this as "phase" [A. Khojiyev, 1973: 188-195]. Due to Khojiyev’s skepticism regarding the presence of a vid (aspect/mode) category in Uzbek, research on aspectual meanings has notably declined. Nonetheless, D. Nasilov published a number of articles and monographs emphasizing that analytic forms with auxiliary verbs in Uzbek specifically convey aspectual meanings. His analyses demonstrated that, akin to other Turkic languages, Uzbek’s analytic forms express the manner of action as a lexical dimension of aspectuality.

Furthermore, D. Nasilov also considered analytic forms when discussing the aktional properties of boundedness and unboundedness in verbs (Nasilov, 1985). From our perspective, defining aktional properties is likely more effective when approached at the level of a single lexeme rather than through multi-word expressions. The first scholar to address the existence of aspect as a grammatical category in Uzbek was A. G’ulomov, who sought phenomena in Uzbek comparable to the Russian vid (aspect) category [G’ulomov, 1956]. Subsequently, academician A. Hojiyev strongly denied the existence of the vid category in Uzbek, emphasizing that the main and auxiliary verb constructions form a unique, distinct level and disregarding the aspectual semantics of analytic forms [Hojiyev, 1975].

D. Nasilov, a researcher of verb semantics in Turkic languages, argued that main and auxiliary verb constructions in Uzbek do indeed convey aspectual meanings. He classified the aspectual meanings expressed through Uzbek analytic forms as part of a lexical-grammatical category [Nasilov, 1975; 1980].

Other scholars, including D.X. Rizayev and G’.Q. Mirsanov, who also studied aspectuality, did not clearly specify the grammatical markers of aspectuality in Uzbek, focusing primarily on meanings derived from the boundedness and unboundedness properties of verbs [Rizayev, 1999; Mirsanov, 2021]. O. Shukurov and B. Mengliyeva consider Uzbek main and auxiliary verb constructions as expressions of manner of action but do not explore which category—lexical, grammatical, or syntactic—these constructions belong to [Shukurov, 2005; Mengliyeva, 2020].

Therefore, the identification of the primary categories that express aspect in Uzbek and clarification of the grammatical nature of aspect remain pressing issues.