American Journal Of Philological Sciences
259
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
259-264
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-68
Description of Research on The Qarluq Dialects of
Surkhandarya
Eshankulov Dilmurod Khurramovich
Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Uzbek language and literature department teacher, TSUUL independent researcher,
Uzbekistan
Received:
25 April 2025;
Accepted:
21 May 2025;
Published:
23 June 2025
Abstract:
This article discusses the classification of Surkhandarya dialects from Uzbek folk dialects and their
certain phonetic, lexical, morphological, word-formation, and syntactic differences. Information is also provided
on the work of our linguists who have worked on the Surkhandarya Uzbek dialects.
Keywords:
Dialectology, qarluq-
chigil, dialect, o‘guz, kipchak, literary language, national language, dialect,
classification.
Introduction:
Dialects can rightfully be called a rich
treasure that forms part of every nation's national
language. Indeed, they may differ from the national
literary language in several aspects-such as their
phonetic, lexical, and grammatical features -but the
true values, rich heritage, and expressive nuances of a
people’s language are preserved in their dialects,
passed down orally from generation to generation over
the centuries. A dialect is considered a form of the
national language, and the literary language develops
and becomes refined by drawing nourishment from
these dialects.
The Uzbek literary language is enriched by the dialects
of the Uzbek people; however, they differ from one
another in certain phonetic, lexical, morphological,
word-formation, and syntactic aspects. In modern
Uzbek linguistics, the contributions of Russian
Turkologists such as I. I. Zarubin,
E. D. Polivanov, K. K. Yudakhin, B. B. Reshetov, and A. K.
Borovkov, as well as prominent Uzbek dialectologists
like Gʻozi Olim Yunusov, Sh. Sh. Shoabdurakhmonov, F.
Abdullayev, Kh. Doniyorov, B. Joʻrayev, A.S. Shermatov,
A. Joʻrayev, and A. Toʻraqul
ov, have been invaluable in
solidifying this field of dialectology [1]. Along with these
scholars, other linguists such as S. Rahimov, Q.
Muhammadjonov, Sh. Nosirov, T. Sodiqov, I. Rajabov,
V. Egamov, T. Gudratov, A. Aliyev, M. Mirzayev, E.
Sheraliyev, and A. Shermatov have also made
significant contributions to the study of the lexical
features of Uzbek dialects. The study of Uzbek dialects
has been divided into two main areas:
1.
General classification of dialects (from a
national or cross-country perspective);
2.
Specific descriptions of dialects (within a
particular oasis or region).
Zarubin classified Uzbek dialects into four major
groups:
1.
Khiva,
2.
Fergana,
3.
Tashkent,
4.
Samarkand-Bukhara.
Yudakhin, while analyzing the relationships between
various Uzbek dialects and the Tajik language, paid
special
attention
to
the
phenomenon
of
synharmonism. Building upon Zarubin’s classification,
he added the Kipchak-influenced dialect group and the
Northern Uzbek dialects. However, the Samarkand-
Bukhara dialects were not examined in detail[2]. Later,
the classification of Uzbek dialects was expanded into
five groups:
1.
Tashkent, 2. Fergana, 3. Kipchak, 4. Khiva
(including Oghuz features),
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
260
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
5. Northern Uzbek dialects.
The Boysun dialect, for instance, was included in the
Kipchak group[3].
Professor E. D. Polivanov conducted one of the most
detailed analyses and classifications of Uzbek dialects.
In his classification, he described not only the dialectal
differences but also examined cases of mestizaje
(intermingling of languages) and hybridization (cross-
language influences). He distinguished between
Iranianized dialects (such as those of Samarkand and
Bukhara) and non-Iranianized dialects (such as the
Kipchak dialects of the Fergana region).
Polivanov classified Iranian-influenced dialects into
seven types:
Type 1: Samarkand
–
Bukhara dialects
Type 2: Tashkent dialects
Type 3: Kokand
–
Margilan dialect
Type 4: Andijan
–
Shakhrihan dialects
Type 5: Uyghur dialects (e.g., Namangan, Chartak)
Type 6: Northern Uzbek urban dialects
Type 7: Northern Uzbek rural dialects [4].
Since 1936, building on Polivanov’s classification,
Professor G‘ozi Olim Yunusov a prominent uzbek
scholar proposed a classification of uzbek dialects into
three main groups:
1.
Uzbek-kipchak dialect group: Spoken by the
population of regions such as Zarafshan, Bukhara,
Samarkand,
Qashqadaryo,
and
Surxondaryo.
Additionally, dialects of Uzbeks living in Khorezm,
Andijan, Namangan, Kokand, Chimboy, Qo‘ng‘irot, as
well as northern Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan,
are included in this group.
2.
Turki-barlos dialect group: Includes the dialects
spoken in cities like Tashkent, Kokand, Namangan,
Andijan, and Margilan.
3.
Khiva-urganch dialect group: Includes the
dialects spoken by the populations of Khiva, Khanka,
Kat, Tashhovuz, Old and New Urgench.
Professor G‘ozi Olim Yunusov also highlighted a
distinctive feature of the Khiva dialect - the
preservation
of
synharmonism,
notably
the
replacement of the phoneme “q” with “k”.
Meanwhile, Professor A. K. Borovkov classified Uzbek
dialects into two major phonetic groups: The recipient
(receptive) group, The o-pronouncing (a-payer) group
[5]. Borovkov identified four representative groups
within Uzbek dialects:
1.
Intermediate uzbek dialect
2.
Shaybani uzbek dialect (also referred to as the
j-pronouncing group)
3.
Southern Khorezm dialect
4.
A Separate group of uzbek dialects [6].
Literature review
Although initial classifications of Surkhandarya uzbek
dialects can be found in the works of scholars such as
E. D. Polivanov and A. K. Borovkov, the first practical
and systematic study of the region’s dialects was
carried out by the linguist A. Mahmatqulov. He was the
first scholar to conduct scientific research specifically
on the “jo‘qchilar” dialect spoken in the Sherabad
district. In 1960, he visited Sherabad to collect field
data and later defended a dissertation on this dialect.
His research revealed specific features of the Sherabad
“j
-
pronouncing” (j
-lovchi) dialects, including the
existence of a distinct demonstrative category and a
well-developed plural formation system. His studies
were published in scientific outlets such as the
“Masalalar” (Issues of Uzbek Linguistics) journal, Issue
4, (1960), where artic
les like “Verbal Forms in the
Dialect of Sherabad's Jo‘qchilar” and “On the
Consonant System in the Dialect of the Sherabad
Jo‘qchilar” attracted considerable attention at the time
and were regarded as important contributions to Uzbek
dialectology.
One of the leading scholars who extensively studied the
Surkhandarya dialects is Saidmuso Rakhimov. His
candidate dissertation was specifically dedicated to the
study of the lexicon of uzbek dialects in the
Surkhandarya region. As noted in the introduction of
his work, although uzbek dialectology had made
considerable progress in researching the phonetic and
morphological features of dialects, the lexical aspect
had not received adequate attention.
The introductory part of his dissertation provides
historical information about the population of
Surkhandarya province, as well as some general
characteristics of its dialects. The main div of his
research focuses on analyzing typical lexical units of
Surkhandarya dialects, grouped according to semantic
and morphological features.
In his classification, Rakhimov divided Surkhandarya
dialects into two primary groups [7]:
1.
"Y-pronouncing" (urban-type) dialects,
2.
"J-pronouncing" Kipchak dialects.
It is important to note that among the dialects studied,
there are also "Y-pronouncing" Kipchak dialects and "J-
pronouncing" dialects, which contain a number of
lexical units that do not align with the standard Uzbek
literary language. These include regional words and
expressions that are absent from literary usage, but
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
261
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
actively used in the speech of local communities. For
example, words such as adagʻ, adaq, tom, which are
attested in the dialects of Surkhandarya but are either
not used or used differently in the literary language.
Rakhimov also examined how some lexemes preserved
in the dialects correspond to terms found in ancient
written monuments, but are no longer used in modern
standard Uzbek. This highlights the historical depth and
continuity preserved in these dialects.
One of the most valuable aspects of Rakhimov’s
research is his documentation of nearly forty lexical
units-such as morin, marin (horse), alang (flame), bee,
arasichi (beekeeper)-that exist in Surkhandarya dialects
and other Turkic languages, yet lack direct equivalents
in the literary Uzbek language. This underscores the
richness and uniqueness of the regional dialects and
their significance for Turkic linguistics more broadly.
The second part of Saidmuso Rakhimov’s dissertation
focuses on the morphological structure of dialectal
words found in Surkhandarya uzbek dialects. In this
section, he analyzes both lexemes that have parallels in
the standard Uzbek literary language-such as dap
(circle), kadi (pumpkin), or (middle), tati (nothing)-and
those that lack direct literary equivalents, like
xabachak, kovachach, and xabichak, which all carry the
meaning of "skin". These non-standard words are
examined as integral parts of the regional lexicon.
Rakhimov also explores compound and derived terms
that are typical of the dialect, offering detailed
morphological analysis. These dialectal expressions are
significant not only linguistically but also culturally, as
they reflect unique aspects of the local worldview and
history.
The classification of Surkhandarya Uzbek dialects has
long been a subject of interest among scholars.
According to Professor E. D. Polivanov's classification
[8], the Surkhandarya dialects are placed in the third
major dialect group of Uzbek-the Kipchak dialect group,
and more specifically within the fifth subtype, which he
terms the Southern Uzbek "j-pronouncing" group.
Polivanov’s approach pays particular attention to the
presence
or
absence
of
vowel
harmony
(synharmonism) as a key feature in classifying Uzbek
dialects. From this phonological perspective,
Surkhandarya dialects exhibit characteristics that align
them with the Kipchak or "pure Uzbek" dialect group,
as they preserve several features of synharmonism.
On the other hand, Professor A. K. Borovkov offered a
different perspective by focusing more on the historical
and structural relationships between dialects, rather
than strictly phonetic criteria. In his classification, he
identifies the Surkhandarya dialects as belonging to the
"j-pronouncing" dialect group, without necessarily
emphasizing vowel harmony or historical-linguistic
divergence.
Speakers of this dialect have been residing in various
regions of Uzbekistan since the 16th century, including
northern Khorezm, Samarkand, Bukhara, Kashkadarya,
Surkhandarya provinces, and parts of the Fergana
Valley, as well as in southwestern areas of Tajikistan.
In classifying Uzbek dialects, Professor G‘ozi Olim
Yunusov placed significant emphasis on phonetic and
morphological features. According to his classification,
the Uzbek-kipchak dialect group includes speakers
residing in a wide range of regions: Ahangaron valley,
Mirzachul, the Samarkand and Zarafshan areas,
Bukhara, Kashkadarya, and Surkhandarya, as well as in
Khorezm, Andijan, Kokand, Namangan, Karakalpakstan,
and the Chimboy and Kungirot districts. Additionally,
Uzbek dialects spoken in parts of Tajikistan and
northern Afghanistan are also considered part of this
Kipchak group.
METHODOLOGY
Professor Yunusov devoted particular attention to
urban-type dialects, especially those known as
“snoring” dialects (burunli shevalar)
, and conducted in-
depth research into their dialectological features.
Alongside these, he also included Kipchak dialects in his
studies and produced numerous scholarly works
analyzing their structures and usage patterns.
In the broader context of Uzbek dialectology,
Academician V. V. Reshetov acknowledged the
presence of unique ethnolinguistic processes within
the current territory of Uzbekistan. He considered both
mutual and non-mutual influences between the
languages of closely related and unrelated peoples.
From a historical-linguistic perspective, Reshetov
identified three major dialectal groups within the
Uzbek language:
1.
Karluk-Uyghur,
2.
Kipchak,
3.
Oghuz.
These groupings reflect both linguistic lineage and
sociohistorical developments that shaped the modern
distribution of Uzbek dialects across Central Asia.
In classifying Uzbek dialects, Uzbek scholars take into
account territorial distribution, ethnic characteristics,
and linguistic features. Based on this approach,
Surkhandarya Uzbek dialects are classified as part of
the northwestern group in terms of geography, as
Kipchak in terms of ethnic origin, and as part of the "j"-
group dialects based on linguistic characteristics. The
Kipchak dialect group is one of the most widespread
across a vast area. Representatives of these dialects can
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
262
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
be found in almost all regions of Uzbekistan,
particularly
in
Sirdarya,
Samarkand,
Bukhara,
Kashkadarya, Surkhandarya, and Khorezm provinces,
where a significant portion of the population speaks a
Kipchak variety.
Moreover, it is not limited to Uzbekistan. Kipchak
dialects of the Uzbek language are also spoken in parts
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, emphasizing
their broad geographical spread.
Academician V. V. Reshetov identified several
distinctive phonetic features of Kipchak dialects.
Among these are:
●
The contrast between paired vowels (such as
oo‘, y
-i, ae),
●
The
preservation
of
vowel
harmony
(synharmonism),
●
The tendency for diphthongization of mid-high
vowels at the beginning of words (e.g., i > ie, u > uo, ü
> üe),
●
The lack of clear distinction between short and
long vowels,
●
Sound changes such as initial y becoming j, and
final y changing to v,
●
Verbal forms like mag‘on, sag‘an, and ug‘an
representing past actions,
●
The use of the auxiliary verb jatir in the present
continuous tense,
●
And the adjectival form of the present-future
tense appearing as dam.
These phonological and morphological characteristics
serve as key identifiers of Kipchak dialects within the
broader spectrum of Uzbek language variation.
RESULTS
As the classifications reviewed show, all Surkhandarya
Uzbek dialects are generally included within the "j"-
group Kipchak dialects. These are considered a
structural branch of the larger Kipchak dialect group. S.
Rakhimov, in his analysis of j-lovchi (j-speaking) Uzbek
dialects, identifies the following morphological
features: “In villages such as Minor, Boymoqli, Gorjak,
and Kallamozor, when verb affixes indicating the plural
second person are used, they consistently appear in
forms such as aq, iner, ner. For example: boraq,
boriner, borner (‘you go’, plural form).” [9]
This phenomenon reflects the local morphological
tendencies and confirms the observations made by
other scholars who have studied dialects in the region.
Despite the above, S. Rakhimov notes the following
caution in his dialectological analysis. “Of course, this
view is accurate, but we must also recognize the
presence of other dialects in the
region.” [10]
This highlights a crucial point emphasized by many
Uzbek linguists: the linguistic landscape of the
Surkhandarya
region
cannot
be
considered
homogenous. The dialects spoken across the area are
diverse and do not form a single unified dialect system.
Based on this understanding, S. Rakhimov proposes the
following classification of Surkhandarya Uzbek dialects:
1.
j-payer Uzbek dialects
–
dialects typical of the
Kipchak group;
2.
y-payer Uzbek dialects
–
dialects typical of the
Karluk group;
3.
Bilingual (mixed) dialects
–
dialects shaped by
language contact and dual linguistic influence. [12]
Although j-payer Uzbek dialects are generally grouped
together based on shared linguistic features, they do
not constitute a fully uniform dialect group across the
Surkhandarya region. S. Rakhimov emphasizes that
even within Kipchak-type dialects, there are internal
divisions. He classifies these dialects into two main
subgroups.
The first group includes dialects spoken in the
southwestern
and
northwestern
parts
of
Surkhandarya. The following villages and residential
areas are identified as representative of this subgroup:
Boysun district: Rabot, Yomchi, Pitov, Kofrun,
Bandixon, Karagan, Tuda, Khojabulgan, Munchak,
Tillakamar, Chilonzor, Kallamozor, Gorjak, Khojaolkan,
Dashtigoz, Pulhokim, Pudina, Sarkamish, Tangimush,
Khomkon, Padang, Besherkak.
Jarkurgan district: Minor, Oktepa, Ismoiltepa,
Kyzylmozor, Choʻpon, Quyun, Boymoqli, Chinabad.
Qumkurgan district: Azlarsoy, Elbayan (now part of the
Salter area), Yantokli, Achamoyli, Korsakli, Khojamulki,
Zarkam, Lalmikor, Yangiyer, Boston, Guliston,
Qumkurgan, Sayhon, Paypan, Pakhtakor, Ulus.
Angor district: Tallimaron, Takiya, Gilambob, Angor.
Sherobod district: Kulliqsho, Gorjak, Khojakiya,
Chukurkul, Talashqon, Yangiyul, Gorin, Achamoyli,
Loyliq, Gambur, Tuguz, Aqqurgan, Bobotepa.
Termez district: Dehqan, Ozod, Yangiarik.
Muzrabot district: Beshqotan.
In the dialects of this group, one of the key phonetic
features is the strong presence of synharmonism (also
known as vowel harmony). The root and affix in a word
harmonize in terms of softness or hardness
(palatalization), which influences morphological
construction. For example, in this group, vowel
substitutions reflect phonological simplification or
transformation:
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
263
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Munayaqqa
–
“to go there,” jarteke –
a local form for
"joke" or playful speech.
Lip-rounded vowels like (u) or (i) are often replaced
with unrounded sounds such as (y) or a non-palatalized
(i), e.g.: not possible > yoqmasli (slurred local form)
shipirtki > shivirki (broom), shubak
–
a local word for
"plaster."
These examples reflect the unique phonetic and lexical
identity of the first group of j-payer Kipchak dialects in
the Surkhandarya region.
The second subgroup of Kipchak-type dialects in
Surkhandarya is found predominantly in the
northeastern part of the province. The dialects of this
group are spoken in the following villages and districts:
Uzun region (previously Asia district): Chimildiq,
Boybori, Bakati, Konikon, Fayzabad, Aqostana,
Kurgancha, Bobotog, Malik, Aqmasjid, Toltogay,
Khursan, Galamulla, Qolmaykan, Jarabad.
Denov district: Change, Aktash, Yaniqishlok, Baxt,
Shamolli,
Eshakoldi,
Zartepa,
Chuqurkishlok,
Saksontepa, Galaba, Hayrabod, Kyzylsuv.
Shorchi district: Ipoq, Mominqul, Obishir, Mirshodi
(now part of the Golden Sea territory, including
Abodan, Qatagan, and Kyzylgul).
According to the researcher, while synharmonism
(vowel harmony) is generally preserved in these
dialects, there are notable deviations and phonetic
simplifications in certain areas.
Key linguistic features of this group include:
Substitution of initial /j/ with /y/: This process is
frequent at the beginning of words. For example: jezze
→ yazna (meaning "pochcha" –
brother-in-law),
jamaq → yamaq (a kind of patch or basin).
Absence or alteration of /j/ in words that contain it in
the literary Uzbek language:Words like jun (wool) or
joʻja (chick) often appear in modified or absent forms in
these dialects.
Incomplete influence of synharmonism on verb
formations:Verb structures such as bor-ken ("we
went") and keladi ("he/she will come") demonstrate
that vowel harmony does not fully apply to
grammatical components, suggesting a reduced
morphological regularity compared to other dialects.
Agreement and alignment inconsistencies: The dialects
exhibit irregularities in subject-object agreement and
verb conjugation, particularly in focus and aspectual
forms, as well as in motion verbs involving
directionality (e.g., arrival vs. departure).
These linguistic phenomena further demonstrate that
while this group still belongs to the broader Kipchak
dialect family, it is distinct in several phonological and
morphological features, and exhibits transitional traits
possibly influenced by neighboring dialects or bilingual
environments. According to S. Rakhimov, the Y-payer
dialects (Karluk-type dialects) of Surkhandarya are
divided into two distinct groups:
1.
Termez-Sariosiya group
2.
Khatak-Khonim group[13]
These dialects are primarily located in the northern
part of Surkhandarya province. The territorial
distribution of Y-payer dialect representatives includes:
Sariosiya district: Dashnobod, Karasuv, Khokim, Uzun,
Vardisoy, Turkqishloq, Gazarak.
Denov district: Vakhshivor (currently within the Golden
Sea territory of Sho‘rchi district).
Sho‘rchi district: Snow (now part of Altinsoy district).
Sherabad district: Khatak, Laylagon, Khujand, Maidan,
Karabakh, Navbog‘, Chig‘atoy.
Termez and surrounding rural regions.
From an ethnolinguistic perspective, the speakers of
this dialect group are associated with various Turkic
tribes such as the Barlos, Chigatoy, Qatagan, and Elbegi,
which have influenced the phonetic and lexical features
of these dialects.
Interestingly, some subdialects
—
especially those
spoken in villages like Khatak, Laylagon, and
Khujandko
—
share several phonological similarities
with dialects spoken in Lower Kashkadarya, particularly
regarding the realization of the vowel “g”, suggesting a
regional convergence or transitional linguistic zone
[14].
CONCLUSION
Based on the literature reviewed, it is evident that the
Surkhandarya Uzbek dialects have attracted significant
scholarly attention. In particular, S. Rakhimov’s
research stands out for providing a systematic and
detailed classification of these dialects. His three-part
classification offers an in-depth understanding of the
phonetic, morphological, and lexical features specific to
the region, distinguishing between j-payer (Kipchak), y-
payer (Karluq), and bilingual speaker dialects. His work,
along with the studies of A. Mamatkulov and H.
Alimurodov, demonstrates that Surkhandarya dialects
are not uniform but consist of various localized sub-
dialects with unique linguistic features.
It is also apparent that earlier works by E.D. Polivanov,
A.K. Borovkov, G.O. Yusupov, and V.V. Reshetov have
laid a foundational classification of Uzbek dialects by
considering phonetic laws, such as synharmonism, and
historical-ethnographic factors. These classifications
placed Surkhandarya dialects within the Kipchak group,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
264
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
often identifying them by their distinctive use of the "j"
and "y" phonemes.
Given the complexity and richness of the Surkhandarya
Uzbek dialects, further research is both necessary and
promising. Future studies should focus on:
Lexical Grouping: A more thorough analysis of dialectal
vocabulary based on semantic, morphological, and
functional characteristics.
Phonetic and Morphological Variation: A detailed
investigation of phonetic shifts (such as j/y alternation)
and morphological markers across villages and districts.
Dialect Geography: Mapping the geographical
distribution of specific dialect features across
Surkhandarya and neighboring regions.
Comparative Studies: Placing Surkhandarya dialects in
comparison with other Uzbek dialects and Turkic
languages to trace etymological and structural
similarities.
Compilation of Dialect Dictionaries: Expanding upon S.
Rakhimov’s Surkhandarya Dialect Dictionary to include
newly identified lexemes and local usages.
Works such as The Sherabad Farmers’ Dialect by A.
Mamatkulov, Morphology of Southern Surkhandarya
Kipchak Dialects by H. Alimurodov, and Lexicon of
Surkhandarya Uzbek Dialects by S. Rakhimov are key
references and serve as a solid base for these future
explorations. Continued scholarly engagement in this
area will not only enrich Uzbek dialectology but also
contribute to the broader field of Turkic linguistics.
REFERENCES
Enazarov T.J., Karimjonova V.A., Ernazarova M.S,
Mahmadiyev Sh.S.,
Rixsiyeva K.G‘. Uzbek dialectology. Tashkent, 2012. p.
37.
Ernazarov M.S., Karimjonova V.A., Ernazarov T.J.,
Mahmadiyev Sh.S., Rixsiyeva K.G‘. Uzbek dialectology.
Tashkent, 2012. p. 23.
Kholova M.A. Uzbek national div research, PhD. diss.
Termez, 2022. 7-p.
Ernazarova M.S., Karimjonova V.A., Ernazarov T.J.,
Mahmadiyev Sh.S.
, Rixsiyeva K.G‘. Uzbek dialectology.
Tashkent, 2012. p. 72.
Ashirbayev S. Uzbek language. Surkhandarya uzbek
dialects. Tashkent, 1985, p. 25.
Enazarov T.J., Karimjonova V.A., Ernazarova M.S.,
Mahmadiyev Sh.S., Rixsiyeva K.G‘. Uzbek dialectology.
Tashkent, 2012. p. 27.
Rahimov S. Surkhandarya province uzbek dialects
lexicon. Philology sciences candidate’s dissertation.
Tashkent, 1974. 20 p.
Polivanov Y.D. Dialectology. Tashkent, 1993. p. 72.
Fayziyeva X.Ch. Uzbek language Boysun-
Sho‘rchi gro
up
dialects dictionary feature. PhD. diss. Termez, 2023. 21-
22-p.
Rahimov S. Surkhandarya province Uzbek dialects
lexicon. Tashkent, 1985. 63 p.
Rahimov S. Uzbek language Surkhandarya dialects.
Tashkent, 1985. p. 53.
Rahimov S. Surkhandarya province Uzbek dialects
lexicon. Tashkent, 1974. p. 13.
Fayziyeva X. Ch., Uzbek language Boysun-
Sho‘rchi
group dialects dictionary feature”, PhD. diss. Termez,
2023. 61- p.
Rahimov S. Surkhandarya province Uzbek dialects
lexicon. Tashkent, 1974. p. 56.
