American Journal Of Philological Sciences
226
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
226-228
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-60
Synonyms and Their Semantic Features
Imamova Gulnora Talibovna
Lecturer, Department of Methodology of Teaching the Uzbek Language, JSPU, Uzbekistan
Received:
23 March 2025;
Accepted:
19 April 2025;
Published:
21 May 2025
Abstract:
This article provides information about synonyms and their types: lexical synonymy, semantic synonyms,
stylistic synonyms, speech synonyms, contextual synonymy and analyzes them through examples.
Keywords:
Synonymy, lexical synonyms, contextual synonymy, semantic synonyms, speech synonyms, stylistic
synonyms, absolute synonyms.
Introduction:
The basis of all languages in the world is
words. Also, human speech depends on the use of
these words. It is no exaggeration to say that the
fluency of our speech and the avoidance of repetition
of the words we speak depend on our large vocabulary
and the use of synonymous words, and the
phenomenon of linguistic units having the same
meaning is called synonymy. [1:124] It is important to
use each of the synonyms in speech, taking into
account their specific characteristics and features. The
unit of synonymy is called words that have one
common meaning, that is, synonyms. Synonyms are not
just a luxury, but a real wealth of the language.
Synonyms are one of the semantic forms of a word, and
are words that have different pronunciations and
spellings, but the same unifying meaning, but differ in
a number of features, such as the subtlety of additional
meaning, and the use of emotional meaning.
“Lexical synonymy is the grouping of lexemes acc
ording
to their common meaning” [2:166]: yelka, kift, omiz
(first group); in, uya, oshyon (second group); nur, shula,
yog'du, ziya (third group), etc. Such groups are called
synonymous series in linguistics. In each synonymous
series: a) the denotative meaning of the lexemes is the
same, the semantics of expression (aspects of meaning,
stylistic nuances, subjective assessment, scope of
application) are different. For example, the lexemes
ozod, ekrin, hur, sarbast denote one denotation -
“own
will, right-rig
ht ownership”, but they also have different
semantics of expression. In particular, the lexeme irbi
has a somewhat neutral meaning, while the lexeme
ozod expresses an upbeat spirit, the lexeme hur has a
sense of artistic style, and the lexeme sarbast is
outdated and bookish.
b) Expression semes are sometimes ranked: all lexemes
yuz, bet, aft, bashara, turq (except for "yuz") have
negative connotation semes, but the degree of
expression of the negative connotation in these semes
is different: it increases and intensifies from "bet" to
"turq". d) Lexemes with neutral meaning that do not
have expression semes are considered dominants of a
synonymous row. For example, yuz, bet, aft, bashara,
turq (dominant - face); nur, shula, yog'du, ziya
(dominant - light); yol'iz, yakka, tanho (dominant -
yol'iz). Of these, yuz (in the first row), nur (in the second
row) and yol'iz (in the third row) have neutral
meanings;
d) lexemes with neutral meaning that do not have
expressive semes are considered dominants of a
synonymous row. For example, yuz, bet, aft, bashara,
turq (dominant - face); nur, shula, yog'du, ziya
(dominant - light); yol'giz, yakka, tanho (dominant -
lonely). Of these, yuz (in the first row), nur (in the
second row) and yol'giz (in the third row) have neutral
meanings;
e) the category semes of lexemes are the same, which
requires the combination of synonyms into one word
category: bahar and ko'klam (noun), kihir and
goz(adjective), sozl'moq and ga'rmoq (verb).
Based on the above characteristics, especially the
variety of expressive semes, lexical synonyms are
divided into the following types:
1."Meaning synonyms (ideographic synonyms). Such
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
227
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
synonyms differ in their semantic aspects" [3:105] For
example, the lexemes to be angry, to be angry, to be
buried are combined into a synonymous series with the
meaning of "to become angry", but the level of
expression of this meaning is not the same in them, it
increases from "to be angry" to "to be angry", and from
"to be angry" to "to be angry". For example, let's
analyze the following sentence: Salimjon yo'lda biroz
hovuridan tushganday bo'lgan edi, uyga kelib bo'lib
o'tgan ishlarni eslab achchiqlandi. Instead of the word
to be angry used in this sentence, we can use its
semantic synonyms, the lexemes to be angry, to be
angry, but the meaning of the sentence is slightly
strengthened by these synonyms.
2. "Style synonyms (stylistic synonyms). The lexical
meaning of such synonyms is covered with positive or
negative coloring (stylistic semes), and these stylistic
semes determine the value of synonyms as stylistic
means"[4:28]
For
example,
the
lexemes
jilmaymoq,iljaymoq, irjaymoq, tirjaymoq, ishshaymoq,
and irjaymoq all have one lexical meaning - naming the
phenomenon of "laughing without making a sound in
the brain", but this meaning is covered with a slightly
positive coloring in the lexeme, jilmaymoq and a
slightly negative coloring in the lexeme jilmaymoq , and
this negative coloring increases even more in the
lexemes jilmaymoq, ishshaymoq, andirjaymoq. Let's
analyze it using the following example of a poem.
3. “Speech synonyms are synonyms that differ from
each other by their specificity to one or another type of
speech” 2:167] For example, while the lexeme in the
series қагагага, picha, sal, xiyol, jinday, qittay, jichc
ha
can be used in all forms of speech (both in literary
speech and in colloquial speech), the lexemes picha,
xiyol, jinday, qittay,jichcha are characteristic only for
colloquial speech. For example, let's analyze the
synonymous word used in the following sentence.
Contextual synonymy is the inclusion of mutually non-
synonymous lexemes as language units into a
synonymous relationship within a certain context (that
is, within speech). For example, the lexical meanings of
the words porcelain and bowl are not the same:
porcelain refers to "white clay used to make dishes,
plates, and insulating materials," and bowl refers to "a
container larger than a bowl."
So, one means “material”, and the other means
“vessel” made of this material, accordingly, they are
not considered synonyms, but in some dialects the
lexeme zhindi is also used in the meaning of “bowl”,
therefore, in the context specific to this dialect, it
becomes a synonym for the lexeme zhindi. For
example, Xoljonbeka... xitoyi chinnida may olib keldi (J
.Sh.) The phenomenon of synonymization within the
context is especially common in the use of the author
lexeme in speech. It is known that the sememe of the
author lexeme includes a number of semes such as
“writer”, “poet”, “storyteller”, “scientist”, “inventor”.
Therefore, its meaning is quite wide. In the context, one
of these semes of the author sememe is actualized,
while the others are not realized. For example, when it
comes to prose works such as novels and stories, the
author lexeme is used only in the meaning of "writer",
which means that it becomes a contextual synonym of
the writer lexeme, while outside the context these two
words cannot be synonymous, because their semantic
scope is not equal to each other. "There are also
lexemes in the language that have equal lexical
meanings and do not have distinguishing semantics:
such as interrogative and question, message, sign and
subject, name and noun.
In linguistics, lexemes of this type are called absolute
synonyms or lexical doublets in two ways"[5:113]
In the following cases, lexemes cannot be synonymous
with each other:
1 “Lexemes of different categories: noun with
adjective, verb with adjective, etc.
2. In lexemes of the same category, names of broad
concepts and names of narrow concepts. This situation
is more typical of terminology. For example, in botany,
the terms species and variety are not equal in scope:
the term species represents the concept of a taxon that
includes several related species and varieties, while
species are combined into categories, and categories
into families. Accordingly, there cannot be synonymous
rows such as species and variety, species and
category”[6:3]
3. Names of phenomena and realities that have
unequal social essence: judge and judge, policeman
and policeman, etc. Of these, the lexemes qozi and
mirshab name the reality in the feudal system, and the
lexemes judge and policeman name the reality
characteristic of the current democratic system. The
semantics of the lexemes in the semantic row are
diverse. Some of them are as follows:
1) a positive or negative assessment or attitude sema;
2) a sema indicating the period of use of the lexeme:
“outdated”, “new”, “very new”, “archaic”, “historical”;
3) a sema indicating the scope of use of the lexeme:
“dialectal”, “colloquial”, “bookish”, “elevation”, etc.
One of the lexemes in the semantic row is the dominant
(head) lexeme, and the others unite around this
lexeme, forming a semantic circle. All of the above-
mentioned expressive semes of the dominant lexeme
are neutral. For example, the synonymous series name
is formed on the basis of the expressive semes of
“bookishness”, “elevation”. In the lexeme balogat in
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
228
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
the series, this seme is not marked (neutral), it is
expressed and clarified in the lexemes kamol kamolot,
etutuklik. The dominant lexeme in the semantic row
has a number of specific features:
1.the content of the dominant lexeme is “poorer”
compared to that of other lexemes. Compare: khishri,
gozal and suluv. The lexeme khishri in the series does
not have the elevating color of the lexemes gozal and
suluv;
2. the scope and quantity of the dominant lexeme are
wider and more numerous than those of other
synonyms;
3. since the dominant lexeme has an undefined
semantic meaning, it can replace its synonyms at any
time;
4. only the dominant lexeme is included in the large
system of synonyms. For example, the dominant
lexeme of the face enters the lexical semantic group
"human div parts" and forms a paradigm with the
lexemes of the ear, nose, lip, eyebrow, forehead.
Since a lexeme with a different expression seme cannot
be “neutral”, it canno
t enter the higher paradigm, and
only its neutral representative can have this right. The
paradigm of semantic compatibility is always open.
Society, based on the demands of the time, is getting
rid of unnecessary consumption and is enriched with a
series of new ones. In speech, the series of semantic
compatibility is filled and expanded with the units of
speech, phrases, types of independent lexeme
sememes, artificial words, word combinations, and
speech metaphors. These are considered a means of
providing the beauty and richness of speech as
contextual synonyms.
REFERENCES
Hojiyev.A “O‘zbek tili sinonimlarining izohli lug'ati”.
Toshkent. “O‘qituvchi”
- 1974
Jamolxonov.H "Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tili". Tos
hkent-
2005.
Ne'matov.H, Rasulov.R "O‘zbek tili leksikologiyasi
asoslari". Toshkent. " O‘qituvchi"
- 1995
Tursunov.U, Muxtorov.J “Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tili”.
Toshkent-1975
Tursunov.U, Muxtorov.J, Rahmatullayev.Sh “Hozirgi
o‘zbek adabiy tili”. Qayta ishlangan to‘ldirilgan 3
-nashri.
Toshkent-1992
Shamsiddinov.H
“So‘zlarning
funksional
-semantik
sinonimlari. Kontekts va tagmatn”
-1998. 3-son
