American Journal Of Philological Sciences
151
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
151-153
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-40
Dictionary Work in The Process of Studying Literary
Texts
Roza Niyozmetova
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Alisher Navo’i Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature, Uzbekistan
Received:
18 March 2025;
Accepted:
14 April 2025;
Published:
16 May 2025
Abstract:
The words used in the literary works discussed in this article differ from those used in everyday speech
and in popular scientific texts. Such differences, particularly in terms of speech styles, have been thoroughly
examined in the field of linguistics. The use of words in literary works has also been studied in terms of frequency
of use. According to the calculations in S.Rizayev and N.Buronov’s “Frequency Dictionary of the Language of the
Story of Abdulla Qahhor “Sinchalak”, a total of 37,482
words are used in this work, representing 10,590 vocabulary
units. Understanding the content of literary texts in Uzbek language classes largely depends on the extent to which
students have mastered lexical and grammatical materials. L.A.Sheiman states tha
t “vocabulary formation is the
main way to overcome the language “barrier” that stands in the way of students mastering samples of Russian
literature in the original” In the study of samples of Uzbek literature, this path becomes even more important
given that the Uzbek speech of Russian-speaking students is not up to standard.
Keywords:
Frequency dictionary, linguistic features of the work, theoretical aspect, literary theory, study of
vocabulary, literary-theoretical concepts, samples of Uzbek literature, Russian-speaking students, Uzbek speech,
lively speech, artistic language skills, polysemy, transfer of word meanings.
Introduction:
In Uzbek language classes, the accuracy,
completeness, and depth of reading comprehension
and artistic perception of literary texts largely depend
on how well the lexical and grammatical materials
within them have been mastered. L.A.Sheyman states,
“Building vocabulary is the primary means of
overcoming the language “barrier” that students face
when studying examples of Russian literature in the
origina
l”. This approach becomes even more crucial
when studying examples of Uzbek literature,
considering that the Uzbek speech of Russian-speaking
students is not at the required level.
Words used in literary works have certain differences
from both the lexicon of everyday speech and the
vocabulary found in popular science texts. Such
differences, especially those in speech styles, have
been thoroughly examined in linguistics. The use of
words in literary works has also been studied in terms
of their frequency of occurrence. According to the
calculations by S.Rizayev and N.Buronov in their
“Frequency Dictionary of the Language of Abdulla
Qahhor's Novella “Sinchalak”,” a total of 37,482 words
were used in this work, representing 10,590 unique
vocabulary units. In contrast, according to the
requirements of the State Educational Standard for
“Uzbek Language”, a total of 2,100 vocabulary units are
to be studied in grades 2-9. These figures highlight the
significant disparity between the two. This distinction
represents only one aspect of the difficulties associated
with lexical coverage in understanding literary texts.
Other challenges arise from polysemy, figurative
language, and other linguistic phenomena.
The linguistic features of a work of art are examined in
depth from a theoretical standpoint. This issue has
been thoroughly examined in books on literary theory,
manuals for studying literary-theoretical concepts and
studies analyzing the language of works of art.
H.Ne’matov and R.Rasulov define the semantics of
expression in the meaning of a word as “semases that,
in addition to the term's meaning, denote various
additional meanings (stylistic colouring, personal
attitude, scope of application)” when covering the
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
152
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
lexicon of the Uzbek language on the basis of
component analysis.
In his research work on the topic “Chulpon’s Artistic
Language Mastery”, M.Yuldoshev speaks in detail
about the descriptive possibilities of synonymous and
antonymous words. For example, he states that in the
Uzbek language, the word burkamoq has a much larger
number of wrapping signs than the word oʻramoq. This
is because its semantic construction contains an
additional semantic meaning of “leaving no open
space”. This is why, in this passage, Chulpon chose the
word burkamoq rather than oʻr
amoq to express the
relevant content, thereby increasing the clarity and
expressiveness of the image.
Often, three synonymous words are used side by side
in a work, and the semantics of expression serve to
express the sign in a graded manner3. “There are
also
beautiful examples of phraseological synonymy in the
novel. The expressions in our language to relieve anger
and to make angry are synonymous, and they are used
in the novel in a somewhat contrasting way: For this, he
said something that would not relieve the Sufi's anger,
but would make him a little angry.”
Lexical-phraseological synonymy serves to express a
certain content in the novel with intense expression.
In the novel, Chulpon created unique examples of the
art of contrast, contrast, and opposition, which are
created on the basis of words with contradictory
meanings. Using a series of antonyms, the writer has
the opportunity to further emphasize various concepts,
signs, situations, and images by contrasting them. The
lexical antonyms used in the novel at the linguistic level
relate more to nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs.
Examples: Sister is sometimes a friend, sometimes an
enemy... So is a sister!
Chulpon used historical words appropriately and
effectively to realistically depict the reality of the era
described in the novel and to ensure the spirit of
historicity of the work.
In any theory of artistic speech, metaphors are
considered central figures, since most metaphors give
such important qualities in artistic speech as
emotionality, expressiveness, expressiveness, and
imagery. The linguopoetic basis of any simile is the
metaphor standard. The originality of a simile arises
from the originality of the metaphor standard. In our
speech, some similes, such as rough as a bear, gentle as
a sheep, cunning as a fox, white as cotton, and hard as
a stone, are considered traditional similes because the
metaphor standards in them have lost their originality.
M.M.Yuldoshev states that “In any theory of artistic
speech, metaphors are considered central figures,
since most metaphors give such important qualities in
artistic speech as emotionality, expressiveness,
impressionability, and imagery. The linguopoetic basis
of any simile is the metaphor standard. The originality
of a simile arises according to the originality of the
metaphor standard. The metaphor standards in a
number of similes in our speech, such as rough as a
bear, gentle as a sheep, cunning as a fox, white as
cotton, and hard as a stone, are considered traditional
similes because they have l
ost their originality”.
M.M.Yuldoshev, recalling M.Mukarramov's opinion
that traditional similes have lost their figurative and
emotional-expressive properties, emphasizes that
making any word or phrase in the language serve the
purpose of imagery and figurativeness depends on the
skill of the writer. Chulpon gives such similes a new
expressive light, along with various means that
enhance the image.
The researcher, referring to the idea that the use of this
tool to name nameless things and images is not only
due to this need, but also to the desire for figurative
expression in human nature, and that there is an
internal natural desire in humans to express things that
have names metaphorically, says: “Metaphors,
especially private-author metaphors, arise more for an
aesthetic purpose, that is, naming something with the
addition of a subjective attitude. That is why they
always have a connotative meaning” ... “Some of the
metaphors created in the work are based on words that
express concepts that have just entered the social life
of that period. For example, “Muncha sergap ekan bu
xotin?
–
dedi Miryoqub.
–
Gramofon-
a!”.
When talking about the linguistic features of a work of
art, it should not be forgotten that a poetic word has
many meanings, but the Russian equivalent of this
Uzbek word may not be poetic. In this case, the teacher
should teach students to know and accurately choose
words that give artistic meaning to a sentence from
among Russian alternatives, and to form in them the
habit of paying attention to the fact that the Russian
expression of the Uzbek sentence, which they translate
and understand, also conveys emotion. Because the
use of words in a literary text is based on the most basic
property of the word - its many meanings. Such use of
words is not stable, but constantly changes. Some
concepts of literature are better mastered in language
lessons. For example, epithet: oltin qo‘llar; tucha
mrachnaya.
At the same time, it is important to always pay
attention to the associative connections of words, to
awaken these associations, and it is here that the
possibilities of guiding the activities of younger
students are hidden. This activity should be directed
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
153
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
towards the aesthetic perception of a work of art1.
As A.T. Rubailo explains, “The proportion
ality of the
artistic word and speech creates certain difficulties.
Teaching to understand this proportionality creates a
solid foundation for the development of aesthetically
conscious reading skills.” Therefore, attention should
also be paid to the analysis of live speech. Then the
sonority of the word will be fully manifested. The
student will learn to hear, perceive and feel.
The following idea put forward in the book
“Methodology of explanatory and literary reading” is
appropriate: “Russian words (in o
ur case, Uzbek words)
should be associated not with the forms of the native
language, but with their concepts. This visual image
evokes direct associative connections of other
language forms with objects and phenomena of
objective reality, and helps students develop figurative
and conceptual thinking in this language”.
It is worth noting that in Uzbek language classes, there
are many situations that hinder the independent
thinking of Russian-speaking students. For example,
when you find an unfamiliar word in a literary text, and
when you find it, you are faced with the task of finding
out which one to choose, if there are two or more
Russian equivalents for this word. In order to solve this
task correctly and demonstrate independence, the
student must demonstrate a sense of self-confidence.
It is a well-known fact that a student who is not
confident in his own abilities cannot make an
independent decision.
In a literary work, the word is given artistic imagery.
This situation also encourages the choice of stylistically
colored alternatives in translation. The same situation
can be encountered in the case of grammatical devices.
Thus, there are many aspects that require step-by-step
independent decision-making in the study of literary
material.
Many lexical and grammatical difficulties arise when
reading a literary text. The following types of work are
required to overcome these difficulties:
1. Dictionary work on new and forgotten words.
2. Lexical and grammatical analysis work on
understanding the meaning of sentences in the text.
3. Work on figurative expressions.
In Uzbek language lessons, literary material is
considered an important and significant factor in
education and upbringing. On the one hand, the use of
lexical and grammatical materials in conditions close to
real communication is facilitated by literature, on the
other hand, some additional difficulties arise in
familiarizing yourself with lexical materials. However,
in any case, studying literary works ultimately makes it
easier to read non-fiction texts.
REFERENCES
Абдуллина А.А. Формирование умения воссоздават
художественные образы в процессе чтения
литературных
произведений
(1
-
3
классы):
Автореф.канд.дисс... пед.наук.
-
М., 1977.
-
9 с.
Рубайло А.Т. Художественные средства языка:
Пособие для учителя. –
М.: Госучпедгиз, 1961. –
9 с.
Методика объяснителного и литературного чтения.
Под ред. К.В.Малцевой и З.С.Смелковой. –
Л.:
Просвещение, 1978. –
221 с.
Y
o‘ldoshev M.M. Cho‘lponning badiiy til mahorati
(“Kecha va kunduz” romani misolida). Filol.fan.nomz. ...
diss. avt-ti. T., 2000.
–
16 b.
Ганженко
М.
Б.
Проблема
оптимизации
методического
аппарата
учебника
русской
литературы для нац.школы.АКД пед.наук. –
М.,
1981. -
8 с.
Шейман Л.А. Основы методики преподавания
русской литературы в киргизской школе. –
Фрунзе:
Мектеп, 1982. –С.141
Rizayev S., Bo‘ronov N. Abulla Qahhor “Sinchalak”
povesti tilining chastotali lug‘ati. –
T.: O‘qituvchi,
1986.
–
6 b.
