INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 544
SYSTEMIC LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK IDEOGRAPHIC
DICTIONARIES
Bekmurodova Maftuna Jumanazar qizi
Teacher at the Department of English Teaching Methodology
№2, Uzbekistan State World Language University
e-mail: maftunabekmurodova52@gmail.com
+998931041993
Key words:
systemic lexical relationships, ideographic dictionaries, English and Uzbek
lexicography, semantic field theory, thematic grouping, lexical structure, bilingual dictionary
design
Kalit soʻzlar:
leksik birliklarning sistem bogʻliqligi, ideografik lugʻatlar, ingliz va oʻzbek
leksikografiyasi, semantik maydon nazariyasi, tematik guruhlash, lugʻaviy tuzilma, ikki tilli
lugʻat tuzish
Ключевые слова:
системные лексические отношения, идеографические словари,
английская и узбекская лексикография, теория семантического поля, тематическая
группировка, лексическая структура, составление двуязычных словарей
Abstract:
This article explores the representation of systemic relationships among lexical units
in English and Uzbek ideographic dictionaries. It analyzes how semantic fields and thematic
groupings are structured to reflect the internal logic of the lexicon in both languages. The paper
highlights the typological and methodological differences between English and Uzbek
approaches to ideographic classification, examining their implications for cross-linguistic
lexicographic practice. The study also identifies opportunities for enhancing ideographic
dictionary quality by incorporating corpus data, semantic networks, and modern lexicographic
technologies.
Annotatsiya:
Mazkur maqolada ingliz va o‘zbek ideografik lug‘atlarida leksik birliklar
o‘rtasidagi sistem bog‘liqlikning ifodalanishi tahlil qilinadi. Leksik birliklar semantik
maydonlar va tematik guruhlash asosida qanday tizimlashtirilishi o‘rganiladi hamda bu
tizimlarning har ikkala tildagi lug‘aviy tuzilishdagi o‘rni yoritiladi. Shuningdek, maqolada
ingliz va o‘zbek ideografik tasniflash yondashuvlaridagi tipologik hamda metodologik farqlar
ko‘rib chiqilib, ularning ikki tilli leksikografiyadagi ahamiyati baholanadi. Tadqiqotda korpus
ma’lumotlari, semantik tarmoqlar va zamonaviy texnologiyalar asosida lug‘at sifatini oshirish
imkoniyatlari ham aniqlanadi.
Аннотация:
В данной статье рассматривается выражение системных лексических связей
в англоязычных и узбекоязычных идеографических словарях. Анализируется структура
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 545
тематических группировок и семантических полей, отражающих внутреннюю
организацию лексической системы обоих языков. Особое внимание уделяется
типологическим и методологическим различиям в подходах к идеографической
классификации в английском и узбекском лексикографическом опыте. Также выявлены
перспективы повышения качества идеографических словарей за счёт использования
корпусных данных, семантических сетей и современных лексикографических
технологий.
Introduction
Systemic lexical relationships refer to the network of meaning connections that hold a
language’s vocabulary together. These include paradigmatic relations words that can substitute
for each other, such as synonyms and antonyms and syntagmatic relations words that co-occur
in phrases or collocations. Lexicographers long ago noted that grouping words by meaning can
reveal these networks. The concept of a semantic field – a set of related lexemes clustered
around a shared concept – is foundational. In an ideographic - thematic dictionary, words are
organized by these fields: for example, all motion verbs: to walk, run, jump… may be listed
under the general concept “movement.” This contrasts with ordinary alphabetical dictionaries,
which treat each headword independently.
Ideographic dictionaries aim to make explicit the internal architecture of a lexicon. By
arranging entries thematically, they uncover semantic relationships and support deeper
understanding of word meanings. Maxkamova and I define an ideographic dictionary as one
that “groups words not alphabetically but according to thematic domains or conceptual
categories,” using broad fields like nature, human, action, emotion as organizers. Such
treatment highlights how words share concepts or contrast with each other. It also serves
practical purposes: thematic dictionaries aid language learning, translation, and stylistic
variation by displaying synonyms, antonyms, and related terms side by side.
In this article, we explore how English and Uzbek lexicography implement these ideas. We first
outline the principles of systemic lexical relationships and semantic fields. We then examine
English ideographic resources notably Roget’s Thesaurus and modern semantic databases and
Uzbek equivalents thematic and terminological dictionaries, wordnets and so on. We focus on
differences in approach: for example, English compilers often use hierarchical semantic
classifications, while Uzbek tradition tends toward contextual grouping and explanatory depth.
We also discuss implications for dictionary design and cross-linguistic lexicography, such as
how to structure semantic fields and reconcile culture-specific concepts.
Systemic Lexical Relationships and Semantic Fields
In structural semantics, the vocabulary of a language is viewed as an interconnected system.
Key types of relationships include:
1.
Synonymy and Antonymy: words with the same or opposite meanings (e.g. big–large,
hot–cold).
2.
Hyponymy/Hypernymy: hierarchy of terms (e.g. rose is a hyponym of flower).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 546
3.
Meronymy: part - whole relations (e.g. wheel is part of car).
4.
Collocation/Syntagmatic association: words that frequently co-occur (heavy rain, strong
coffee).
5.
Morphological derivation: words sharing a root (e.g. teach, teacher, teaching) often
show semantic links.
Together, these relations form semantic fields or lexical fields. A semantic field is “an internal
domain of meaning within a language, encompassing a group of words organized around a
shared concept”. For example, the concept “emotion” might yield a field containing happy, sad,
anxious, joyful, etc. Within a field, words are paradigmatically related (interchangeable in
certain contexts) and also connected syntagmatically they may co-occur with related verbs or
adjectives.
Ideographic dictionaries are built on these ideas. They provide thematic blocks or tables of
words united by a conceptual domain. As we explain, ideographic resources “organize words
and expressions into thematic groups based on semantic proximity,” revealing hidden semantic
links and supporting contextual understanding. For example, in a semantic field like movement,
an ideographic dictionary will list words like walk, run, jump, slide, gallop together. In this way,
a user sees at a glance that these verbs share the concept of motion, and may also find near-
synonyms or contrasts among them.
Because ideographic dictionaries foreground concepts, they highlight horizontal paradigmatic
and vertical syntagmatic relations. The “classificatory” function is often emphasized: words are
logically grouped by field. The “cognitive” role is also key: by reflecting conceptual structures
of thought, these dictionaries help users grasp how lexical knowledge is organized in the mind.
In short, systemic relations – synonymy, hierarchy, association – become explicit. As one
author notes, a thesaurus - a type of ideographic dictionary “systematically presents numerous
synonyms and antonyms,” but ideographic dictionaries can extend this by mapping meanings of
ideas in multiple dimensions.
English Ideographic Dictionaries
In English lexicography, the classic ideographic dictionary is Roget’s Thesaurus of English
Words and Phrases first published 1852. Roget’s arranges English vocabulary by concept and
was “recognized by world linguists as the first ideographic dictionary”. Its structure is highly
semantic: it divides words into large classes such as Abstract Relations, Matter, Intellect,
Volition, Affection and then into further subclasses. Within each conceptual group, words are
listed by part of speech: nouns, verbs, etc. reflecting a “structural semantic principle”. For
example, Roget’s entry for content is a diagram where nouns: contentment, satisfaction, verbs:
satisfy, gratify, adjectives: satisfied, contented, and adverbs are each given in a numbered series,
showing their semantic proximity. Antonyms are often paired as noted in earlier editions,
antonyms were placed side-by-side, and synonyms are grouped in context e.g. happiness with
joy, pleasure, bliss.
Modern English lexicography continues this tradition with digital semantic databases. For
instance, the Historical Thesaurus of English Oxford organizes nearly every English word in an
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 547
onomasiological (concept-based) hierarchy from Old English to today. Similarly, WordNet
(Miller 1995) is a computational lexicon where words are connected in synonym sets - synsets
with marked relations (hypernym, hyponym, antonym). These tools emphasize explicit
hierarchies and equivalence relations. In Roget’s and its successors, the primary relationships
shown are hierarchical or equivalent synonymic ones. The thesaurus “groups words based on
shared meaning or topic,” making semantic structure overt. Collocational syntagmatic relations
are less focal, though many modern thesauri include example phrases to hint at usage.
English thematic dictionaries tailored for learners or specialists follow similar patterns. Studies
note that English thematic dictionaries often use hierarchical classification schemes, treating
broad categories down to specific domains. For example, a health-themed dictionary might first
categorize by medical specialty, then list relevant terms alphabetically within each area. This
reflects a long-standing analytic tradition: English being less inflected relies on explicit
classification and usage contexts. Phrasal verb dictionaries, visual thematic dictionaries, and
specialized thesauri all tend to present words along conceptual lines.
One practical difference noted in research is that English lexicographers assume some
standardization of terminology in scientific fields. English idiomatic expressions are abundant,
and specialized dictionaries may list them, but often there is an expectation of direct
equivalence or straightforward explanation in English. Thus, English ideographic resources
focus on organizing the lexicon into fields and showing prototypical synonyms/antonyms
within each.
Uzbek Ideographic and Thematic Lexicography
Uzbek lexicography has its own approach. Historically, Uzbek has not had a Roget’s-style
general thesaurus, but it does have thematic and terminological dictionaries. For example, in
1975 Uzbek scholars compiled a Russian - Uzbek thematic dictionary that divided vocabulary
into 16 major categories e.g. Earth, Sky, Society, etc.. Ruziyev reports that in Uzbek
lexicography, dictionaries can be classified by how the vocabulary is given: alphabetical,
thematic, or cellular (network) types. A thematic (ideographic) Uzbek dictionary lists words by
subject area, typically grouping first by part of speech and then by subtopics. The 1975 volume
by Tikhonov et al. “Russko-Uzbek Tematichesky Slovar” is often cited: it organized 4860
Russian headwords (with Uzbek equivalents) into conceptual fields. Although this was
bilingual, it reflects a systematic Uzbek understanding of semantic fields.
More recent work by Uzbek linguists and lexicographers has emphasized the lexical system and
semantic fields. Islomov (2018) describes efforts in Uzbek linguistics since the 1970s to study
the lexicon as a structured system of semantic groups. Sabirova’s research, as cited by
Xoliyorova, shows in detail how Uzbek semantics are layered and how synonymy, antonymy,
and hyponymy operate in context. Xoliyorova herself argues for creating an electronic Uzbek
thesaurus that systematically reflects Uzbek semantic fields and word relationships. She notes
that such a resource would “clearly indicate the interrelationships between words” and support
the formation of new terms. In her view, an Uzbek thesaurus should display hierarchical,
equivalent, and associative relationships among lexemes, just as international standards ISO
define a terminological thesaurus.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 548
A key theme in Uzbek sources is that contextual grouping and cultural factors often shape how
fields are defined. Alisherova and Sodikova find that while English thematic dictionaries use
strict hierarchies, Uzbek works tend toward contextual or pragmatic grouping: words are often
clustered by usage scenarios rather than rigid taxonomies. They also observe that Uzbek
dictionaries frequently include extended definitions or explanatory notes to compensate for
gaps where there is no exact Uzbek equivalent of an English concept. For example, English
idioms are paraphrased in Uzbek thematic entries rather than translated literally, and whole
semantic nuances (often culture-specific) are explained. This reflects the Uzbek tradition of
careful definition: Uzbek dictionaries, especially learner’s or bilingual ones, may present a
concept with several Uzbek synonyms and a descriptive note.
Additionally, Uzbek lexical entries often reflect morphological relationships. In some Uzbek
glossaries (e.g. Guerin’s Uzbek-English glossary), headwords appear with their derived forms
and compounds in one semantic table. This practice underlines Uzbek’s agglutinative nature:
many related words share a root, and grouping them together helps convey meaning. Although
not every Uzbek dictionary is ideographic, Uzbek lexicography increasingly considers lexical
families and derivations as part of systemic organization.
Cross-Linguistic Comparison
Comparing English and Uzbek approaches reveals both common ground and divergence. Both
systems recognize that semantic fields structure the lexicon, and both use thematic grouping to
some extent. However, the methods of grouping differ: English leans more on hierarchical
categorization, while Uzbek often emphasizes contextual or pragmatic grouping. Alisherova
and Sodikova’s comparative study explicitly notes this contrast English thematic dictionaries
use a systematic hierarchy, whereas Uzbek dictionaries favor grouping by usage context.
As a result, some systemic relationships are foregrounded differently. In English ideographic
dictionaries, hierarchical relations hypernyms/hyponyms and synonym clusters are explicitly
charted. For example, a field like fruit in an English semantic dictionary will list fruit as the
head and then enumerate various subtypes apple, orange, banana in the same structure. Uzbek
thematic groupings might treat those words similarly, but because Uzbek morphology and
syntax differ, the arrangement may focus more on how the words are used in phrases or on
illustrative examples. Uzbek sources also highlight that cultural concepts play a larger role:
certain semantic fields (e.g. family relationships, social customs) may be subdivided or defined
with attention to Uzbek norms.
Translation between the two systems poses challenges. Cultural or lexical gaps mean that an
English semantic field may not map neatly onto Uzbek. Alisherova and Sodikova note that
translating culture-bound terms is difficult; English idioms often lack direct Uzbek parallels.
Therefore, Uzbek ideographic dictionaries might not only list Uzbek words, but also explain
foreign concepts in Uzbek terms, or note multiple meanings. Bilingual thematic dictionaries
(English–Uzbek) need to handle these disparities: the structuring of semantic fields in one
language may require flexible or expanded categories in the other.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 549
Despite differences, both traditions value the same ultimate goal: to facilitate conceptual
understanding of the lexicon. Xoliyorova explicitly states that treating an Uzbek thesaurus both
as a terminological dictionary and an ideographic dictionary improves understanding of a
language’s conceptual structure. This insight is cross-linguistic: a well-designed dictionary
whether English or Uzbek should make clear how words interrelate in meaning, so that learners
and speakers form a coherent lexical map.
Implications for Dictionary Design
The comparison above has practical lexicographic implications. First, designers of ideographic
dictionaries should incorporate multiple types of relations. English models emphasize
taxonomy and synonymy, but Uzbek experience shows value in contextual and associative
information. For instance, an English thematic dictionary might benefit from including usage
notes or cultural context (as Uzbek dictionaries do), while an Uzbek dictionary could employ
clearer hierarchical markers for educational clarity. Dictionary entries should highlight
synonyms, antonyms, and hypernyms in ways accessible to users – possibly through nested
subcategories or linked tables.
Second, semantic field selection and granularity must suit each language. Broad fields (e.g.
nature, society) are useful starting points, but further division should reflect linguistic reality.
English may use universally recognized divisions (colors, emotions, artifacts), whereas Uzbek
dictionaries might introduce fields rooted in local culture or grammar. Indeed, Xoliyorova
argues for identifying unique semantic fields in Uzbek and tailoring the dictionary’s structure
accordingly. Bilingual dictionary-makers must map these fields carefully: where Uzbek has a
nuanced category (e.g. solar terms, kinship), the English side should explain or cross-list
equivalent concepts.
Third, digital tools and corpora can aid this process. As noted, English has wordnets and
historical thesauri that automatically compute semantic relations. Similar resources like the
UZWordNet are emerging for Uzbek. These can inform field creation by showing clusters of
related words in usage. Moreover, hyperlinked electronic dictionaries can blend alphabetical
and thematic access: users might see an alphabetical entry with a link to its semantic field or
cluster (a “cellular” view). This hybrid design combines the strengths of both approaches.
Finally, educational application is key. Both languages’ lexicographers see ideographic
dictionaries as tools for learners and translators. An ideal English Uzbek dictionary might have
a thematic appendix or digital interface where users can navigate concepts in either language.
For example, an Uzbek speaker could select the field “Food” and see both Uzbek and English
terms organized conceptually; conversely, an English learner could see Uzbek equivalents by
field. Such cross-linguistic conceptual maps could bridge the systemic differences we identified.
Conclusion
Ideographic dictionaries emdiv systemic relationships by structuring vocabulary around
meaning. In English lexicography, this has traditionally meant rigid semantic taxonomies (as in
Roget’s Thesaurus) and explicit listing of synonyms and antonyms. In Uzbek lexicography,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 550
practitioners tend to group words more flexibly by context and to provide detailed explanations,
reflecting the language’s typology and cultural specificity. Both approaches recognize semantic
fields as organizing principles. Understanding these differences is crucial: dictionary designers
should blend hierarchical and contextual methods, ensure semantic fields reflect each
language’s reality, and facilitate cross-language concept alignment. For lexicographers and
educators, the lesson is that semantic field structuring and lexical networks must be adapted to
the language and user needs. An English and Uzbek ideographic dictionary, for instance, will
succeed only if it accounts for the richer synonym clusters of English and the explanatory
demands of Uzbek. Overall, emphasizing systemic lexical relations – through synonyms,
hierarchies, and thematic grouping – yields richer dictionaries. As Uzbek scholars have argued,
viewing thesauri and thematic dictionaries as tools to reveal a language’s conceptual
architecture leads to deeper understanding. Future lexicography (especially in Uzbek) will
likely continue to integrate computational methods and cultural insights to realize this ideal.
References:
1. Agostini, A., Usmanov, T., Khamdamov, U., Abdurakhmonova, N., & Mamasaidov, M.
(2021). UZWORDNET: A lexical-semantic database for the Uzbek language. In
Proceedings of the Global WordNet Conference 2021.
2. Alisherova, S. A., & Sodikova, S. A. (2025). The lexicographic principles for creating
thematic dictionaries in English and Uzbek languages. International Journal of Science and
Technology, 2(5), 133–135.
3. Bekmurodova, M. J., & Maxkamova, S. M. (2025). Structure of ideographic dictionaries.
Luchshie Intellektual’nye Issledovaniya, 43(2), 476–485.
4. Islomov, I. K. (2018). The systemic nature of lexis and ideographic dictionaries.
Anglisticum Journal (IJLLIS), 7(11), 13–19.
5. Ruziyev, Q. T. (2024). Current Uzbek dictionaries and dictionary types. Western European
Journal of Linguistics and Education, 2(1), 20–27.
6. Sodikova, S. A. (2021). Historical approach to the study of ideographic dictionaries in
Western linguistics. JournalNX: A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, 7(4), 61–65.
7. Tikhonov, A. N., Khatamov, N. T., Yemelyanova, S. A., & Tikhonova, M. (1975). Russko-
uzbeksky tematichesky slovar’ [Russian-Uzbek thematic dictionary]. Tashkent: O‘qituvchi.
8. Xoliyorova, G. G. (2025). Lexicographic foundations of creating an Uzbek language
electronic thesaurus. Western European Journal of Linguistics and Education, 3(2), 31–36.
