International Journal Of Literature And Languages
158
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
158-160
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue05-36
An Anthropocentric Approach to The Linguistic Essence
of The Term in Uzbek Linguistics
Ikromjon Toshpulatovich Khabibjonov
Acting Professor at Kokand State University, PhD in Philology, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 March 2025;
Accepted:
29 April 2025;
Published:
31 May 2025
Abstract:
Every language has its own unique grammatical structure, which serves as a medium for conveying
specific meanings and essences. These elements are closely related to the linguistic, scientific, and spiritual
worldview of the speakers of that language. This article briefly discusses the anthropocentric approach to the
linguistic essence of the term in Uzbek linguistics.
Keywords:
Linguistics, term, research, linguistic essence, language.
Introduction:
In Uzbek linguistics, M. Mukarramov,
who studied the scientific style of the Uzbek language,
identifies the following key features of linguistic units
that express scientific concepts
—
terms
—
based on
numerous studies: “1) A term is monosemous or tends
toward monosemy; 2) A term has a clear, nominative
function and does not possess emotional, expressive,
or modal functions; 3) The meaning of a term is
equivalent to a concept; 4) A term is stylistically
neutral; 5) Terminological vocabulary forms a separate
system; 6) A term is a function... The distinction
between a term and an ordinary lexeme, based on
these six features, is noted in nearly all linguistic
literature” [1: 5].
Russian linguist S.G. Dudetskaya, who studied
metaphorization
in
terminology,
explains the
continued existence of synonymy among terms as
follows: Medicine, as a developing field, is not free from
synonymy in its terminology. The reasons for the
emergence of synonyms in terminology include:
traditional usage of terms, the existence of diverse
viewpoints within the field, multilingual information
exchange often connected to distinct national
microsystems, and the lack of systematic efforts aimed
at limiting the proliferation of synonym terms [2: 11].
We believe that this situation described by the scholar
can also be observed in many fields of Uzbek
terminology. In nearly all previous studies dedicated to
the investigation of terms in Uzbek linguistics, the
existence of synonymous terms in the field has been
emphasized.
N. Mahmudov also addresses this linguistic issue,
posing the following question: A question naturally
arises
—
are these requirements applicable to all terms
in the languages of all scientific disciplines without
exception? Of course, answering this question in the
affirmative would not be correct. Naturally, the
phenomena, laws, and objects studied differ across
disciplines. Therefore, the classification of sciences
based on such and similar aspects has become common
in philosophy of science.
In the humanities, particularly in linguistics, some
terms appear to be polysemous. For example, sixty
years ago, Polish l
inguist A. Schaff lamented: “Today,
semantics as a field of scientific research is becoming
so complex, and the term itself has acquired such
polysemy, that if we wish to avoid unpleasant
confusion and logical ambiguity, we must subject the
lexeme ‘semantics’ itself to semantic analysis” [1: 6–
7].
Based on N. Mahmudov’s observations, we can
conclude that today, the polysemous nature of terms in
the social and human sciences and the variability of
terms even in the natural sciences to some extent
indicate that such diversity is conditional. In
approaching the linguistic essence of a term, one must
consider the specific characteristics of each field.
It is well known that anthropocentric linguistics
recognizes the existence of conceptual and linguistic
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
159
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
metaphors. In the cognitive model of metaphor, it is
presented not only as a linguistic phenomenon but also
as a psychological one. The existence of metaphorical
expressions in language is a result of the presence of
metaphorical models in human psychology” [3: 3
4].
Cognitivists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson proposed
a new interpretation of metaphor within the
framework of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. A
conceptual metaphor is defined as a way of
understanding one domain through another in a non-
formal manner
—
that is, experiences structured by
cognitive frameworks are transferred from a source
domain to a target domain. Metaphorical relations
between polysemous lexemes and metaphorical
expressions in language are reflections of conceptual
metaphors. For example, the metaphorical expression
“Our relationship has hit a dead end” and the
metaphorical meaning of the lexeme “dead end”
express the conceptual metaphor “Love is a journey,”
in which concepts typical of travel are mapped onto
concepts related to love.
The theory of conceptual metaphor developed by G.
Lakoff includes the following important conclusion:
Metaphor is a key mechanism for understanding
abstract concepts and reasoning about them.
Metaphor is not inherently a linguistic phenomenon
but a conceptual one. Metaphorical language is merely
the external expression of conceptual metaphor.
Metaphorical concepts are based on non-metaphorical
concepts
—
that is, on our sensorimotor experiences.
Rather than relying on similarity, metaphor is more
often based on correspondences within our
experiences. The source and target domains are not
inherently connected in essence [4: 179
–
180].
Durdona Khudoyberganova has also expressed her
views on cognitive metaphor, emphasizing its
anthropocentric nature in accordance with the
principles of modern metaphorology. She regards
cognitive metaphor as an effective means of
understanding,
categorizing,
conceptualizing,
evaluating, and interpreting the world. She defines it as
a phenomenon of conceptualizing one concept or
judgment based on knowledge structures related to
another concept or judgment, which belongs to an
individual’s cognitive activity [5: 9].
Z.I. Rezanova outlines the following characteristics of
linguistic metaphor: a) it is expressed through linguistic
means; b) due to the duality of meaning, it can appear
in logical classifications beyond the natural boundaries
of categories
—
relating to objects, features, and
processes
—
based on analogy (or sometimes other
bases) [6: 26].
In modern linguistics, due to the study of terms in
relation to national-cultural values, social and political
phenomena, and knowledge about the external world
within the language of the society to which an
individual belongs, new scientific conclusions are
emerging. Attention is being paid to evaluating the
unique linguistic features of terms in connection with
the need to express new processes and realities,
studying terminological materials based on primary
sources,
defining
historical
perspectives
on
terminology across different periods, exploring the
genesis of terminological units, their linguistic
relationships with other linguistic elements in language
development, and identifying both their unique and
shared features.
Contemporary linguistic research increasingly supports
the view that linguistic phenomena previously
considered
foreign
to
terminology
—
such
as
terminological synonymy and doublets
—
are in fact
inherent and unavoidable in the composition of
terminological systems. For instance, Z. Jo‘raboeva
states in her research:
"Synonyms are regarded as the most frequently and
actively used lexical units in the ecological
terminological
system.
When
determining
relationships among lexical units in the ecological
terminological system, semantic commonality and
compatibility are more significant than formal
similarity" [7: 16].
In addition, despite the fact that many scientific and
practical studies have been conducted on the
terminological systems of different languages, it
remains
evident
that
phenomena
such
as
terminological synonymy, doublets, and polysemy
cannot be completely eliminated. Without fully
addressing these features in the science of linguistics,
new synonymous, doublet, and polysemous terms
continue to emerge across various fields of
terminology. This process places new linguistic
challenges before linguists and terminologists,
particularly in terms of genus
–
species relationships.
Modern linguistic studies are now exploring how this
process of transterminologization is connected to
human cognitive processes. Research in this area
suggests that transterminologization first occurs within
the cognitive activity of an individual. It is then
transferred into the linguistic landscape and the
scientific worldview, and finally, it is reflected in the
language of a community whose cognition has
undergone such a transformation, thus becoming part
of that language as a term.
Leading linguists around the world are gradually
moving away from defining terms solely as lexical units
representing domain-specific concepts. Instead, they
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
160
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
are beginning to interpret terms in connection with
human cognitive, psychological, sociological, and
cultural domains. For instance, in Western linguistics
since the 1980s and 1990s, there has been growing
interest in the influence of cognitive processes on the
terminological foundation of language. Meanwhile, in
Russian linguistics, efforts are being made to identify
the national and mental nature of terms used in various
fields. These and similar developments are leading to
fundamentally new approaches and recommendations
in the study of language, especially in explaining the
linguistic essence of terms.
The views of researchers L.M. Alekseeva and S.L.
Mishlanova fully support the above-mentioned
argument. Firstly, the cognitive aspect does not allow
the term to be vi
ewed simply “in and of itself” as a
descriptive object but enables it to be understood and
recognized in the way it is presented by the specialist
who created it. Secondly, cognitive research of a term
compels researchers to come to terms, to a certain
extent, with the complexity and inconsistency of the
term, thereby directing the terminologist’s attention
toward exploring the internal regularities of the term’s
distinctive features. Thirdly, cognitive research in
terminology contributes to a deeper understanding of
new problems related to terms. This includes issues
such as the human relationship with the surrounding
environment and the reflection of a person’s
knowledge about the world through language [8: 8
–
11].
Initially, science regarded metaphor as a phenomenon
of literary art and did not attract the attention of
scholars and artists as a phenomenon of language,
culture, and art. Later, especially in the 1960s and
1970s, scientific interest in metaphor began to grow.
One scholar studying the history of metaphor research
once said, “If the number of students studying
metaphor continues to grow as it is now, by the
beginning of the 21st century, they will outnumber the
population of the earth” [9: 7]. Even today, interest has
not diminished. In Uzbek linguistics, the cognitive
aspects of metaphor have also begun to be explored,
and numerous articles and dissertations have been
produced. In this regard, it is appropriate to mention
Sh. Mahmaraimova’s dissertation. Her research stands
out because it is devoted to the language as a whole
system. Since language is a unified system, metaphor
can also be studied through its combinations. As terms
are formed as products of scientific thinking,
metaphorization inevitably occurs in the process. This
process, without a doubt, necessitates the study of
Uzbek terminology from the perspective of
metaphorization.
REFERENCES
Mahmudov, N. (2013). Fan tili va til fani. O‘zbek tili va
adabiyoti, (5).
Dudetskaya, S. G. (2007). Metaforizatsiya kak sposob
terminoobrazovaniya
(na
materiale
angliyskoy
terminologii cherepno-chelyustno-litsevoy khirurgii i
stomatologii) [Metaphorization as a method of term
formation (based on English terminology in cranio-
maxillofacial surgery and dentistry)] (Author’s abstract
of PhD dissertation). Samara.
Mishankina, N. A. (2012). Metaphor in terminological
systems: Functions and models. Vestnik Tomskogo
Universiteta, (4).
Kobozova, I. M. (2014). Lingvisticheskaya semantika
[Linguistic Semantics]. Moscow: LENAND.
Khudoyberganova,
D.
(2013).
Matnning
antropotsentrik tadqiqi [Anthropocentric analysis of
the text]. Tashkent: Fan Publishing.
Rezanova, Z. I., Mishankina, N. A., & Katunin, D. A.
(2003). Metaforisticheskiy fragment russkoy yazykovoy
kartiny mira: klyuchevye kontsepty. Ch. 1 [The
metaphorical fragment of the Russian linguistic
worldview: Key concepts. Part 1]. Voronezh.
Djurabayeva, Z. (2018). O‘zbek tilida ekologik terminlar
[Ecological terms in the Uzbek language] (Doctoral
dissertation abstract). Tashkent.
Alekseeva, L. M., & Mishlanova, S. L. (2007). On the
trends in modern terminology studies. In Aktualnye
problemy lingvistiki i terminovedeniya [Current issues
of linguistics and terminology studies] (International
collection of scientific papers dedicated to Prof. Z.I.
Komarova’s jubilee). Yekaterinburg.
Baranov, A. N. (2017). Cognitive metaphor theory:
Almost twenty-five years later. In Lakoff, G., & Johnson,
M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem [Metaphors We Live
By] (A. Baranov, Ed. & Trans., 3rd ed.). Moscow: LKI
Publishing.
