American Journal Of Philological Sciences
95
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 03 2025
PAGE NO.
95-99
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue03-24
Eqonyms As Lexical-Semantic Phenomenon
Ermatov Ikhtiyor
GulSU, Professor of the Department of Uzbek Linguistics, Uzbekistan
Karshibayeva Yulduz
PhD student of GulSU, Uzbekistan
Received:
24 January 2025;
Accepted:
21 February 2025;
Published:
23 March 2025
Abstract
:
This article focuses on the problems of Uzbek linguistics, in particular, on the eqonymic and eqonymic,
hyperonymic and hyperonymic, hyponymic and hyponymic relations inherent in the system of language levels and
their units, and their application in the system of Uzbek linguistic terminology. The terms eqonym and eqonymy
are relatively new lexical units in the system of linguistic terms. Therefore, this term is not recorded in current
scientific and lexicographical sources on linguistics. The linguistic concept expressed by the terms eqonym and
eqonymy, although it is “similar” to the linguistic concepts named by the terms polysemy, homonymy, synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy, has not yet been officially widely popularized in linguistics, especially in Uzbek linguistics.
Linguistic terms serve as illustrative material for the article. The purpose of the study is to analyze eqonymic
relations in the dictionaries of Uzbek linguistics The aim of this work is to study the specific features of economic
relations in the system of terms based on the In order to achieve the goal of the study, the following tasks were
set: to analyze the literature in order to clarify the relationship between words and terms, to critically respond to
existing theories; to clarify the relationship between words and terms; to clarify the equonymic relationship in the
linguistic terminology of the Uzbek language. The following scientific analysis methods were used in the study:
linguistic description, system, statistical, contextual analysis methods. The method of linguistic analysis was used
in the analysis of scientific literature on the topic of the study. The method of system analysis was used to clarify
the relationship between equonyms and terms. The results of the study will help to organize terms and interpret
meanings based on the analysis of equonymic relationships in the terminological system and to include them in
the general dictionary.
Keywords:
Lexicon, communicative activity, national language, system (system), heterogeneous system,
homogeneous system, suppletivism, hyperonym, hyponym, equonym, equonymic relationship.
Introduction:
As is known, lexicon forms the core of
language. However, this core is so complex that, along
with the lexical units actively used in the
communicative activity of the whole people, there are
also lexical units that are not important for the
communication of the whole people and therefore
“falsify” the dialogue of the whole people in the same
linguistic status. In this respect, the lexicon and its
integral system resemble individuals with different
languages gathered in one room and their inseparable
group. In world linguistics, the emergence, formation,
stages of development of national languages have been
studied from various aspects. Terms, which are the
main tool of research of any science, their linguistic
nature, sources of occurrence, methods of formation,
types of terms according to their structure, ways to
eliminate synonymy and duplication in them, the
relationship between terms and concepts, etc., have
also become one of the main issues in linguistics.
Object of research and methods used
The object of research is explanatory dictionaries of the
Uzbek language and explanatory dictionaries of
linguistic terms Uzbek linguistic terms. The following
scientific analysis methods were used in the study:
linguistic description, system, statistical, contextual
analysis methods. The method of linguistic analysis was
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
96
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
used to analyze scientific literature on the topic of the
study. The method of system analysis was used to shed
light on the relationship between eqonyms and terms.
Statistical analysis was widely used to study the
occurrence and reflection characteristics of linguistic
terms in Uzbek explanatory dictionaries.
The results obtained and their analysis
Although the relations between lexical-semantic
groups in Uzbek linguistics have been studied as an
object of research, the equinymic, hyper-hyponymic
relations in the terminology system have not been
sufficiently studied. In particular, R. Safarova's
dissertation research work entitled "Hyponymy in the
Uzbek language" [11], defended in 1990, and the
treatise "Types of lexical semantic relations" [12],
published in 1996, and I. Ermatov's monograph "Hyper-
hyponymic and equinymic relations in the system of
terminology (on the example of linguistic terms)" [17],
published in 2022, are considered the first
monographic studies in this direction in the Uzbek
language. In addition, the work "Lexical microsystem
and its research methodology" (System lexicology) co-
authored by H. Nematov, E. Begmatov, R. Rasulov
Theses)
[5]; A. Nurmonov's "On the Features of Linguistic Signs"
published in 1992 [6]; "Fundamentals of System
Lexicology of the Uzbek Language" published in co-
authorship with H. Ne'matov, R. Rasulov [7]; "Current
Uzbek Literary Language" published in co-authorship
with A. Berdialiyev, I. Ermatov [2] are devoted to this
issue of linguistics. The objects of the research work are
A. Hojiyev's "Explanatory Dictionary of Linguistic
Terms" [16], which consists of more than 1700 words
and word combinations, and N. Mahkamov and I.
Ermatov's "Explanatory Dictionary of Linguistic Terms"
[4], which consists of about 1500 words and word
combinations, are analyzed.
Vocabulary units that are not active for public
communication also form a specific paradigm, and
among them, terms and their system stand out with
their own linguistic features. Terms and their system
also have a specific linguistic complexity, so their initial,
that is, initial “activity” may be “unfamiliar” even for
some people in the professional field to which these
terms belong. For example, in linguistics there is the
term “allusion”. Allusion (Latin allisio
- hint, joke). A
stylistic figure consisting in referring to a literary or
socio-historical fact through certain language units. In
linguoculturology, allusion is studied from the point of
view of the interaction of two cultural-semiotic fields
[13]. In the paradigm of the linguistic concept of
“allusion” and related to this term, there are such
terms as “allusion denotation”, “allusion indicator”,
“allusion source”, etc. These are terms for specific
concepts related to the science of linguistics. However,
do you think that these terms and their essence are
equally understandable to all specialists in linguistics
and are actively used in their scientific work? Of course
not. For those who are engaged in the direction of
linguistics, linguoculturology, which was formed in the
21st century, these terms are special linguistic (lexical)
units, that is, terms, which are easily understandable
and actively used in their scientific work. These terms
and their essence are considered inactive linguistic
units for specialists engaged in traditional linguistics
and their scientific work. However, the specificity of
terms for a specific field of science and technology does
not in the least interfere with their linguistic status in
the description of a linguistic (lexical) unit, that is, a
word (lexeme). Therefore, a term and their system do
not differ in linguistic status from a word, phrase and
their system. Therefore, the language of a specific field
of science and technology The terminological system
has common linguistic features with the system of
broad lexical units specific to the national language.
The lexicon of the vernacular language, as a specific
heterogeneous system (system), consists of a system
(homogeneous system) of lexical units in the
description of micro-, medio- and macrostructures.
Accordingly, in the lexicon of the vernacular language,
lexical units operate within various logical-linguistic
groups, depending on their formal, semantic and
melodic relationships. The complex of lexical-content
micro-, medio- and macrostructures, that is, their
whole association, forms a specific holistic system of
the lexical structure of the language, that is, the lexicon.
Thanks to this system, the existence that surrounds us
is perceived in a single and holistic way [2]. The terms
and their system related to a specific field of science
and technology also have a heterogeneous systemic
character inherent in the lexicon of the vernacular
language, and this holistic system (i.e. terminology) is a
set of lexical units in the description of micro-, medio-
and macrostructures inherent in the lexicon of the
vernacular language. It reflects the logical-linguistic
relationships of (terms).
The
heterogeneous
systematicity
inherent
in
terminology and its logical-linguistic possibilities are a
particularly serious subject of research. This article
aims
to
consider
only
one
logical-linguistic
phenomenon belonging to this important and complex
topic and its application in the Uzbek linguistic
terminological system. Therefore, the phenomenon of
ekonym and ekonymy related to the system of media
structures of the dictionary structure and its
application in the system of terms of Uzbek linguistics
constitute the brief content of this article.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
97
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
The main content and essence of this article is “What
linguistic concept is the term ekonym used in the
lexicon of the national language and what characterizes
its application in the terminological system?” The terms
ekonym and ekonomia are relatively new lexical units
in the system of linguistic terms. Therefore, this term is
not recorded in the current scientific and
lexicographical sources on linguistics. The terms
ekonym and ekonomia are considered only in the
textbook “Fundamentals of the Theory of Meaning” by
M.V. Nikitin
[8] as a group phenomenon of lexical structure, along
with synonymy and antonymy. In Uzbek linguistics, the
terms ekonym and ekonomia were first studied by A.
Berdialiyev as a lexical-semantic phenomenon, along
with hyponyms, partonyms, and functiononyms, in the
group of “lexical
-content media structures of lexical
units that differ on a denotative basis” of lexical
structure [2].
The linguistic concept expressed by the terms ekonym
and ekonomia, although polysemy, homonymy,
synonymy, antonymy, Although the terms hyponymy
are "similar" to the linguistic concepts they name, they
have not yet been officially and widely popularized in
linguistics, especially in Uzbek linguistics. It is an urgent
task of our time to widely and officially popularize the
linguistic concepts denoted by the terms eqonym and
eqonymy in science. Because the phenomena of
equionymy and equionymy are, by their nature,
extremely close to the phenomena of antonymy and
antonymy, in traditional linguistics some linguistic
cases related to equionymy and equionymy (for
example, boy and girl, sister and brother, ram and
sheep, etc.) have been interpreted as antonyms and
antonyms. Equionymy and equionymy, according to
the well-founded recognition of M.V. Nikitin, are the
semantic subordination of lexical units denoting a
certain type of meaning to lexical units denoting a
gender meaning. For example, the lexemes of father
and mother in the national language are lexical units
that are semantically subordinate to the family lexeme
in the type meaning and gender meaning. The lexemes
of father and mother are semantically subordinate to
the family lexeme and perform a linguistic function as
eqonyms that form its meaning and function. Thus, it is
clear that the concepts of eqonym and eqonymy are
linguistically
synchronous-syncretically
mixed
phenomena with the concepts of hyperonym and
hyponym. Because the fact that lexical units in the
meaning of gender are considered hyperonyms, and
lexical units semantically subordinate to these lexical
units in the meaning of species are considered
hyponyms has long been widely recognized in
linguistics, including Uzbek linguistics [8]. However, the
linguistic concepts related to the terms eqonym and
eqonymy have only just begun to be studied, not to
mention the terminological and professional lexicon,
but even on the basis of the materials of the lexicon of
the national language [1].
The phenomena of equionymy and equionymy and
their linguistic action arise and operate under the
influence of the phenomenon of suppletivism specific
to the lexical level. Lexical suppletivism (in general,
suppletivism) is an associative co-dependence of
semantically close lexical units, in which one of the
lexical units has a linguistic relationship with another
lexical unit that has a common meaning in memory. For
example, several words such as brother and sister,
sister and brother, father and grandfather, father and
mother, etc. belong to the same common semantic
circle in terms of close kinship. One of the lexical pairs
has an associative relationship in memory with another
lexical unit belonging to this pair. Also, the lexemes
brother and brother, sister and sister, father and
grandfather, father and mother, in addition to being
equinomical in relation to each other, are also
hyponyms in relation to the hyperonymic lexeme
family. These facts are considered in the status of
equinonyms a reliable indication that formalized lexical
units also function formally in the status of hyponyms
in the same place. Thus, eqonyms are lexical-linguistic
units that are semantically subordinate to a lexical unit
with the status of hyperonym at the lexical level in
terms of the meaning of the genus. Due to the fact that
a lexical unit with the meaning of the genus is a
subordinate lexical unit in the meaning of the genus in
relation to a lexical unit with the character of a
hyperonym denoting the meaning of the genus,
eqonyms are connected with hyponyms in the same
linguistic source, they are equal to them. However, the
equality resulting from this connection cannot
eliminate the linguistic differences that operate in the
relationship between the phenomena of eqonym and
eqonymy and the phenomena of hyponym and
hyponymy: no matter how similar and mixed they are,
the phenomena of eqonym and eqonymy differ from
the phenomena of hyponym and hyponymy. This
difference is connected, first of all, with the hierarchy
of meanings operating in the semantic scope of lexical
units. Linguistic (lexical) units are semantic The
hierarchy in the scope of the dialectic is based on the
law of negation of negation, in which the meaning and
function of a certain stage is replaced by the next
meaning and function belonging to the same semantic
series: a linguistic unit in the status of a hyponym
becomes a linguistic unit in the status of a hypernym.
For example, cattle, horses, sheep, etc. are lexical units
semantically subordinate to the linguistic unit of
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
98
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
domestic animals. Because, cattle, horses, sheep are
domestic animals. At this stage, the hyperonym
“domestic animal” is a hypernym, and the lexemes
cattle, horses, sheep are hyponyms in relation to
“domestic animal”. At this semantic stage, the meaning
of the lexemes horse, cattle, sheep, which are
considered hyponyms, is also expressed in lexemes
such as stallion, biya, toy (horse), bull, new bull, heifer,
cow, calf (cattle), ram, sovlik, tokhli (sheep). At this
stage, stallion, biya, toy are eqonyms to the lexeme
“horse”; bull, new bull, heifer, cow, calf to the lexeme
“cattle”; ram, sovlik, tokhli to the lexeme “sheep” It is
noticeable that eqonyms are the last, final semantic
stage in the hierarchy of hyponyms and hypernyms.
From the point of view of this stage, a linguistic unit in
the status of an eqonym is connected with a linguistic
unit in the status of a hyponym in the same linguistic
source, that is, the same linguistic unit is considered
both a hyponym and an eqonym. According to M.V.
Nikitin, hyponyms semantically subordinate to one
hypernym are considered eqonyms in relation to each
other. And eqonymy is a semantic relationship arising
from the relationship of eqonyms [8]. These features
related to the semantic and functional levels of the
general lexicon are also characteristic of the semantic
and functional levels of the linguistic units of the
terminological system. After all, the terminological
lexicon, except for the scope of consumption, does not
differ linguistically from the general lexicon. The main
task of both the terminological lexicon and the general
lexicon is naming, i.e. The difference is that while the
general lexicon names objects and phenomena of the
objective world that are known and familiar to
everyone and their properties, the terminological
lexicon names objects and phenomena that are known
and familiar to certain groups of a particular ethnic
community that differ in their professions and
occupations. Also, while linguistic units belonging to
the general lexicon (usually lexemes, i.e. words) name
the denotations on which the meaning of these
linguistic units is based, linguistic units belonging to the
terminological lexicon (these can be words, i.e.
lexemes, as well as simple and complex word
combinations) name denotations of a certain abstract
nature. More precisely, if linguistic units belonging to
the general lexicon are considered names of meanings,
linguistic units belonging to the terminological lexicon
are names of concepts.
CONCLUSION
Hyponym and hyponymic relations operate in the
system of linguistic units of each level of the language.
It is important to note that the relations of eqonym and
eqonymy related to the phenomenon of hyponym and
hyponymic relations differ in some specific features in
the system of linguistic units of the levels of the
language. In addition, in the terminological system,
unlike the general lexical system, there is a hierarchical
process within the framework of linguistic units with
the status of eqonyms. For example, the term
“consonant phoneme//sound” is a hyponym
-eqonym
of the term “phoneme//sound”. The terms “voiced
phoneme//sound”, “unvoiced phoneme//sound” are
eqonyms as functional-semantic types of the term
“consonant
phoneme//sound”.
Such
important
linguistic processes are present in all level phenomena
of the language. Therefore, this complex linguistic
phenomenon must be studied separately in larger
plans for each level of the language.
REFERENCES
Бегматов Э. Ҳозирги ўзбек адабий тилининг лексик
қатламлари. –
Тошкент, 1985. –
122 б.
Mahkamov N., Ermatov I. Tilshunoslik terminlarining
izohli lug„ati. –
T.: Fan, 2013.
–
144 b.
Неъматов Ҳ., Бегматов Э., Расулов Р. ва б. Лексик
микросистема ва унинг тадқиқ методикаси. (Систем
лексикология тезислари) ЎТА, 1989, №6.
Нурмонов А. Лисоний белги хусусиятлари ҳақида. –
Андижон. 1992. –
126 б.
Неъматов
Ҳ.,
Расулов
Р.
Ўзбек
тили
систем
лексикологияси асослари. –
Т., “Ўқитувчи” нашриёти, 1995. –
128 б.
Никитин М.В. Основы лингвистической теории
значения. –
Москва: Высшая школа, 1988. –
215 с.
Орифжонова
Ш.
Ўзбек
тилида
луғавий
градуонимия. Номз. дисс. автореф. –
Тошкент, 1996.
–21 б.
Расулов Р. Ўзбек тилидаги ҳолат феъллари ва
уларнинг облигатор валентликлари. –
Тошкент,
1989.
–
121 б.
Сафарова Р. Гипонимия в узбекском языке. АКД. –
Тошкент, 1990. –
25 с.
Qizi, I. S. M. (2024). LINGUOCULTUROLOGICAL
FEATURES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN THE WORKS
OF NV GOGOL" THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR" AND
KH. KH. NIYAZI" MAYSARA'S TRICKS". Western
European Journal of Historical Events and Social
Science, 2(10), 17-20.
Халилова, Л. А. (2020). ПУТИ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ
МОТИВАЦИИ НА УРОКАХ РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА.
Гуманитарный трактат, (
89), 58-60.
GOGOL'S, P. U. I. N. LINGUOCULTURAL FEATURES OF
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN NV GOGOL'S WORK" THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
афарова
Р.
Лексик
семантик
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
99
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
муносабатнинг
турлари.
–
Т.:
Ўқитувчи, 1996. –
48 б.
Худойберганова
Д.
Лингвокультурология
терминларининг қисқача изоҳли луғати. –
Тошкент,
2015.
–
44 б.
Чейф У.Л. Значение и структуры языка. –
Москва,
1975.
–
325 с.
Қиличев Б. Ўзбек тилида партонимия. Филол. фан.
номз. дисс.... автореф. –
Тошкент, 1997. –
21 б.
Ҳожиев
А.
Тилшунослик
терминларнинг
изоҳли
луғати.
–Т.:
Ўзбекистон миллий энциклопедияси, 2002. –
168 б.
Hamroyeva Sharifa Shukur Qizi, . (2023). ISSUES OF
TRANSLATING NATIONAL COLORING WORDS - REALIAS
IN THE NOVEL “NAVOI” BY OYBEK. International Journal
Of Literature And Languages, 3(04), 29
–
33.
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume03Issue04-06
Hamroyeva Sharifa Shukur Qizi, . (2023). THE ANALYSIS
OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF ABDULLA KADIRI’S
“O’TKAN KUNLAR”. American Journal of Philological
Sciences,
3(05),
82
–
87.
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume03Issue05-15.
Эрматов И. Терминология тизимида гипро
-
гипонимик
ва
эквонимик
муносабатлар.
Монография. –Т.: Tamaddun, 2022. –
251 б.
Казакова, Д. Г. (2019). Эффект мультимедийных
технологий в обучении иностранных языков.
Научный журнал, (6 (40)), 93
-94.
Казакова, Д. Г. (2018). Современные технологии
обучения. Достижения науки и образования, (5
(27)), 64-65.
Казакова,
Д.
Г.
(2018).
Роль
личностно
-
центрированного обучения в совершенствовании
системы образования. Достижения науки и
образования, (5 (27)), 63
-64.
Мирзакулова, Н. И., & Казакова, Д. Г. (2014).
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ
ТЕХНОЛОГИИ
ОБУЧЕНИЯ
ИНОСТРАННЫМ
ЯЗЫКАМ
КАК
СРЕДСТВО
ПОВЫШЕНИЯ КАЧЕСТВА УЧЕБНОГО ПРОЦЕССА. In
Филология
и
культурология:
современные
проблемы и перспективы развития (pp. 15
-17).
