European International Journal of Philological Sciences
86
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
86-89
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
25 April 2025
ACCEPTED
21 May 2025
PUBLISHED
30 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 06 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Comparative And
Typological Study Of
Semantic Categories
Inherent In A Noun (Using
The Example Of Uzbek And
English)
Sarvinoz Alimova Sobirovna
PhD researcher of Samarkand State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This article provides a comparative-
typological analysis of the semantic categories inherent
in nouns in Uzbek and English. As a result of the analysis,
taking into account typological data, both similarities
and differences between languages are revealed. From
this perspective, the comparison explains which
categories express the semantics of a noun and how
they manifest in the languages being studied. This
approach not only reveals the differences between the
two languages but also contributes to establishing
common principles of semantic systems. The research
results can be useful in the field of linguistic theory,
applied linguistics, and translation.
The concept of semantic category, that is, the types of
meanings expressed in language, is considered on the
example of lexical units, in particular, nouns. The study
examines the following semantic categories.
Keywords:
noun, semantic category, comparative-
typological analysis, lexical-semantic groups, Uzbek
language, English language, animate and inanimate
nouns, proper and genitive nouns, concrete and
abstract nouns, semantic analysis.
Introduction:
The noun is a fundamental part of speech
that constitutes a significant portion of the vocabulary
in both Uzbek and English. It functions as the
designation of a person, object, place, state, or
phenomenon and also serves as the core element in
nominal word combinations. Nouns are distinguished
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
87
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
based on semantic, morphological, and syntactic
features.
Studying the theoretical foundations of the noun
category in Uzbek and English and examining their
lexico-semantic characteristics allows us to clarify their
division into certain lexico-grammatical groups. In both
languages, the general meanings and semantic groups
of nouns are similar: they are divided into concrete and
abstract, proper and common, animate and inanimate,
singular and collective nouns.
In any natural language, the noun represents a primary
lexical unit. In Uzbek and English, nouns usually
function as the subject or object in a sentence and
occupy a central place in both the grammatical and
semantic structure. When studying nouns, their
semantic categories are of great importance in
addition to grammatical features.
Semantic categories are types of meanings expressed
by linguistic means. In linguistics, this concept is
particularly thoroughly studied in logical semantics and
philosophy. The theory of semantic categories was
developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by
G.
Frege
and
E.
Husserl,
who
called
it
Bedeutungskategorien (“categories of meaning”).
Later, this direction was deepened by representatives
of the Lviv
–
Warsaw School of Philosophy. Scholars
such as S. Lesniewski, A. Tarski, K. Ajdukiewicz, T.
Kotarbinski, and others applied this theory to logical
and linguistic systems.
The Category of Animacy/Inanimacy of the Noun
It is known that the category of animacy/inanimacy is
connected with the innate human ability to divide the
surrounding world into living and non-living beings and
objects. This classification is universal and reflects the
essential aspects of human thinking. The linguistic
worldview expressed in any language reflects not only
the spiritual and physical experiences of a person but
also their attitude toward the world (nature, animals,
themselves as part of the world). From this
perspective, in the compared languages, the animacy
category is built on binary opposition and expressed by
lexico-grammatical means.
In Uzbek, the classification of nouns by animacy is
based on the interrogative words kim? (who?) and
nima? (what?). Nouns answering kim? are names of
people (e.g., ayol
—
woman, shifokor
—
doctor,
oʻqituvchi —
teacher), whereas those answering nima?
denote objects (e.g., dars
—
lesson, kitob
—
book,
mushuk
—
cat, daraxt
—
tree). In particular, in Eastern
traditions, including Uzbek culture, being is divided
into kishilik (personal) and nokishilik (non-personal),
where the latter may include both animate and
inanimate objects [Rahmatullayev 2006:204].
In Uzbek, the division of nouns into animate and
inanimate does not have a clear grammatical basis. The
question kim? applies only to humans, while all other
nouns take nima?. Therefore, a lexico-semantic
approach is taken to analyze this category.
Thus, in Uzbek, the division into kishilik and nokishilik
(personal and non-personal) differs from the English
opposition
animate/inanimate.
In
English, the
agreement of nouns with pronouns he/she/it is related
to the category of gender. Animate nouns denote living
beings (e.g., man, woman, dog, cat), while inanimate
ones denote non-living objects or phenomena: book,
wind, freedom, and use the pronoun it. If the gender of
an animal is unknown, it is also used.
In English, the animacy category is expressed through a
range of morphological means: suffixes such as -er, -or,
-ar, -ee, -ite, -ess, -ian, -ent and words like -man, -boy, -
woman, -girl. However, animacy can also be expressed
without morphological markers: child, son, friend, etc.
In Uzbek, a similar function is realized through
derivation using affixes and composition.
In modern Uzbek literary language, the following affixes
are commonly used to form personal nouns: -chi, -kor, -
soz, -furush, -shunos, -paz, -
xoʻ
r, -boz, -xon, -navis, -
parast, -
goʻy,
-dosh
—
each differing in meaning, usage,
and other features [Hojiev, 2007:63].
However, the productive formation of animate nouns
can be unstable when a shift toward inanimacy occurs.
For instance, in English, -er/-or typically form nouns for
people engaged in certain activities (e.g., teacher, actor)
but are also used for inanimate objects with specific
functions (toaster, computer). The suffix -ist may denote
profession or group identity (artist), but is also found in
object names (motorist, alarmist). Similarly, -ian
typically forms personal names (librarian), but may
denote objects (guardian
—
security device). Such usage
suggests a functional analogy with human roles.
In Uzbek, there is also a transition of meaning from
proper nouns to common nouns. For example,
Xosiyatxon is a woman’s name, but also a type of fabric.
Or Rizamat
—
a grape variety named after a
hardworking gardener. Thus, derivative nouns can gain
new lexical meanings. The borrowed Tajik suffix -
xoʻ
r is
used to form nouns for beings consuming something:
hasharotxoʻr (insectivore), oʻlaksaxoʻr (scavenger). In
such words, -
xoʻr means “feeding on something,” and
the exact meaning is determined by the root. However,
such derivatives are limited in number [Hojiev,
2007:75].
The Category of Abstractness/Concreteness
It is known that within nouns, two interconnected
categorial concepts exist
—
“substance” and
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
88
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
“objecthood.” The concept of “objecthood” is
interpreted in various ways: it is analyzed as a
grammatical, lexico-grammatical, or lexico-semantic
category. For example, M.I. Steblin-Kamensky
emphasized that the meaning of a noun is a
grammatical meaning of objecthood, while the lexical
meaning comes along with it. In his view, nouns
grammatically always
express “objecthood” and
lexically are divided into “object
-
based” (e.g., table,
chair) and “non
-object-
based” (e.g., beauty, walk)
[Steblin-Kamensky, 1974:45].
A semantic approach to nouns is found in the works of
scholars such as H. Sweet, H. Palmer, O. Jespersen, J.
Kern, and J. Newson, and their classifications differ. O.
Jespersen, for instance, divides nouns into six
subcategories: living beings and plants, inanimate
objects, things, events and states, units of
measurement, and indicators of quantity and features.
J. Kern distinguishes five subcategories: common,
proper, material, collective, and abstract nouns. J.
Newson identifies four groups: common and proper,
concrete
and
abstract.
The most
accepted
classification is H. Sweet’s, where nouns are fi
rst
divided into variable and invariable, then into concrete
and abstract. Concrete nouns are further subdivided
into proper, collective, and material.
As seen, classifying nouns remains a complex task and
subject
of
much
research.
However,
most
classifications divide nouns into concrete and abstract.
This categorization
relies on the semantic,
morphological, and syntactic features of nouns or their
correspondence.
The category of concreteness includes nouns denoting
material, visible, and perceptible objects. These are
directly sensed and can be easily imagined. Such nouns
represent real, physical world entities and are
perceived through sight, hearing, touch, or smell.
Main features of concrete nouns:
Materiality: They denote physically existing objects
(e.g., uy
–
house, daraxt
–
tree, stol
–
table).
Sensory perception: They can be experienced through
the senses and easily visualized.
Specificity: They refer to specific objects (e.g., table
immediately conjures a concrete image).
Context independence: They can be used without
much contextual dependency.
Imagery: They are easily pictured in the mind.
Abstract nouns denote ideas that lack concrete form
and cannot be directly sensed. For example: sevgi
(love), baxt (happiness), adolat (justice). These are not
substances but mental or conceptual notions.
Main features of abstract nouns:
Immateriality: They lack physical form and are
understood only intellectually.
Universality: They are common across cultures (e.g.,
freedom, truth).
Grammatical expression: Many are formed from
adjectives or verbs (e.g., go‘zallik from an adjective,
bilim from a verb).
Context sensitivity: Some words can be both concrete
and abstract depending on context (e.g., tajriba
–
experiment vs. life experience).
Thus, the difference lies not only in whether they
denote real or imagined objects but also in how they
express qualities or attributes [Sayfullayeva, 2009:323].
The Category of Countability/Uncountability
The category of countability relates to the grammatical
category of number. Countable nouns can take plural
forms, while a lack of plural form signals uncountability.
Whether a singular noun is uncountable depends on its
semantics and grammar.
Sh. Rahmatullayev explains this as the manifestation of
the singular form in the counting paradigm. For
example, daraxt (tree) may logically refer to multiple
trees as a category, while daraxtlar limits the reference
to a specific group. Morphologically, Uzbek lacks a
specific singular marker
—
bola (child) can refer to one
or more depending on context. It gains singular meaning
only through contrast with bolalar (children)
[Rahmatullayev, 2006:133].
Countability in Uzbek is thus determined by
morphological, contextual, and pragmatic factors.
In contrast, English uses grammatical markers like a/an
to indicate countability. This category has lexical,
grammatical, and syntactic dimensions. Hence, whether
a noun is countable depends on dominant features
across these levels.
Two special noun types must be noted:
Pluralia tantum (only plural): e.g., trousers, scissors,
tongs, pincers, breeches, environs, outskirts, dregs.
Singularia tantum (only singular): e.g., information,
advice, furniture.
The Category of Collectiveness
Collective nouns share features with uncountable
nouns, representing indivisible sets of countable
objects, e.g., nation, team.
In Uzbek, nouns like xalq (people), qoʻshin (a
rmy)
denote more than one entity but formally appear in
singular form. Number forms in Uzbek include:
1. Singular,
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
89
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
2. Dual,
3. Plural,
4. General quantity.
In English, collectiveness is expressed by:
Collective nouns: team, family, committee, audience.
These may agree with singular or plural verbs: The
team is winning vs. The team are arguing.
Nouns of multitude: people, cattle, police, clergy
—
always plural: The police are investigating.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the semantic categories of nouns in Uzbek and
English form a multi-layered and flexible system that
reflects how speakers of each language perceive,
classify, and conceptualize reality. Categories such as
concreteness/abstractness,
countability/uncountability,
collectiveness,
animacy/inanimacy, individuality/ plurality define the
lexico-grammatical properties of nouns and play an
important role in syntax and meaning-making.
The comparative analysis of these categories reveals
both universal features common across languages and
specific traits tied to national-cultural and cognitive
frameworks. Understanding how these categories
function provides insight into language structure and
interlingual equivalence, laying a foundation for
further comparative-typological and applied linguistic
studies.
REFERENCES
Corbet
–
1991
–
Corbett G. Gender.
–
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
–
P. 12.
Huddleston, Pullum
–
2002
–
Huddleston R., Pullum G.
K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
–
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
–
P. 477.
Ilyish
–
1965
–
Ilyish B. The Structure of Modern
English.
–
M., 1965.
–
P. 40; 87; 89.
Mirtojiyev
–
2010
–
Mirtojiev M. O‘zbek tili
semasiologiyasi.
–
Toshkent: Mumtoz so‘z, 2010. –
98-
b.
Quirk
–
1985
–
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G.,
Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language.
–
London: Longman, 1985.
–
P. 314.
Rahmatullayev
–
2006
–
Rahmatullayev Sh. Hozirgi
o‘zbek adabiy tili. –
Toshkent: Universitet, 2006.
–
133-
b.; 204-b.
Rosenbach
–
2014
–
Rosenbach A. English Genitive
Variation
–
the State of the Art // English Language and
Linguistics.
–
2014.
–
Vol. 18. Iss. 2.
–
P. 215
–
262.
Safarov
–
2004
–
Safarov F. O‘zbek tilida son
-miqdor
mikromaydoni va uning lisoniy-nutqiy xususiyati.
Filologiya fanlari nomzodi ilmiy darajasini olish uchun
taqdim etilgan dissertatsiya avtoreferati.
–
Samarqand,
2004.
–
8-bet.
Sayfullayeva
–
2009
–
Sayfullayeva R.R., Mengliyev B.R.,
Boqiyeva G.H., Qurbonova M.M., Yunusova Z.Q.,
Abuzalova M.Q. Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tili. –
Toshkent:
FTM, 2009.
–
323-b.
Болдырев
–
2015
–
Болдырев
Н.
Н.
Антропоцентрическая сущность языка в его
функциях, единицах и категориях // Вопросы
когнитивной лингвистики. –
2015.
–
№ 1 (42). –
С. 9.
Болдырев
–
2017
–
Болдырев
Н.
Н.
Интерпретирующий фактор языка в познании и
коммуникации // Когнитивные исследования языка.
–
2017.
–
Вып. 29. –
С. 43.
Исаченко –
1961
–
Исаченко А. В. О грамматическом
значении // Вопросы языкознания. –
1961.
–
№ 1. –
С.
36.
Костромин –
2017
–
Костромин А. Б. Классификация
неисчисляемых существительных в английском
языке // Вестник РУДН. Серия: Теория языка.
Семиотика. Семантика. –
2017.
–
Т.8. № 3. –
С. 614–
619. URL: http://journals.rudn.ru/semioticssemantics
Стеблин
-
Каменский –
1974
–
Стеблин
-
Каменский М.
И. Спорное в языкознании. –
Л.: Учпедгиз, 1974.
Ҳожиев –
2007
–
Ҳожиев А. Ўзбек тили сўз ясалиши
тизими. –
Тошкент: Ўқитувчи, 2007. –
63-
б.; 75
-
б.
