Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
40
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article explores the lexical-semantic method of forming slang units, highlighting its relevance and contribution to
linguistic studies. Slang, as a dynamic and open linguistic system, is enriched through constant interaction with
external social and cultural factors. The focus of this research is on the mechanisms of metonymy and metaphor,
which serve as primary tools in slang formation. Metonymy facilitates meaning transfer based on contextual
associations, while metaphor introduces figurative interpretations grounded in similarity or analogy. Examples from
the Uzbek language illustrate how these mechanisms contribute to the creation of new slang units. The study also
incorporates cross-linguistic comparisons, particularly with Russian and English, to identify universal and language-
specific tendencies in slang development. The findings underscore the role of slang as a reflection of cultural and social
identity, as well as its influence on the evolution of language.
KEYWORDS
Slang formation, lexical-semantic method, metonymy, metaphor, uzbek language, linguistic creativity,
sociolinguistics.
INTRODUCTION
The vocabulary of a language is an open system,
qualitatively unlimited and quantitatively and
functionally variable, consisting of lexemes. The
emergence of new units in a language is inevitably
accompanied by cultural and material production,
religious worldviews, fashion, state influences, and
even the communication within social groups. The
language system is constantly in motion, enriched with
new linguistic units. In response to the continuous
changes in external factors and their effects, the
Research Article
THE LEXICAL-SEMANTIC METHOD OF FORMING SLANG UNITS
Submission Date:
December 14, 2024,
Accepted Date:
December 19, 2024,
Published Date:
December 30, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume04Issue12-08
Musayev Abduvali
Associate Professor at the Methodology of Teaching Uzbek Language Department at JSPU, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijll
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
41
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
meanings and forms of linguistic units also evolve. As a
result, this leads to the movement and development of
linguistic materials. Similarly, our research object, the
slang system, emerges in the language under the
influence of external factors.
Slang, as an independent linguistic phenomenon,
represents
a
communicative-pragmatic
aspect,
expressing people’s metaphorical perceptions of the
world. The emergence of slang is a creative process
connected to simplifying speech, expressing thoughts
quickly and concisely, and replacing units with suitable
alternatives based on the context and process. This
phenomenon, tied to the culture of speech, the art of
words, and rhetorical skill, has intrigued scholars and
philosophers since ancient times. In particular,
philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian
paid special attention to this issue. Since those times,
the critical requirements for speech
—
accuracy,
precision, logical consistency, unambiguity, variety,
clarity, harmony, imagery, conciseness, brevity, and
authenticity
—
have retained their value to this day.
For example, Aristotle, in his work *Rhetoric*, noted:
“Among the four types of metaphors, those based on
analogy deserve special attention.” According to
Aristotle, the language of poetry demands a unique
use of words so that the chosen words ensure both
clarity and distinction from everyday speech. While
commonly used words provide clarity to poetic
language, “glosses, metaphors, and embellishments...
make it noble and grand” and differentiate it from
e
veryday language. Furthermore, “a metaphor
possesses a high degree of precision, pleasantness,
and harmonious charm,” and its appropriate and
knowledgeable use decorates speech. In Aristotle’s
view, “unusual words,” including metaphors, are
defining features of poetic language.
At this point, we would like to emphasize that unusual
words, i.e., metaphors derived from condensed
comparisons, produce aesthetic effects. Such unusual
words also align with the characteristics of slang units.
In Russian linguistics, scholars such as M.A. Grachev,
V.S. Elistratov, L.P. Krysin, and V.V. Khimik have
expressed various views on the formation of slang,
considering it a complex system of word formation
that incorporates multiple types of word creation.
G. Eman emphasizes that youth slang, with its
distinctive features that set it apart from other
linguistic units, deserves to be a separate object of
study. He notes that colloquial speech carries a social
load and highlights the methods of formation for youth
slang: semantic variation, narrowing and broadening
of meaning, semantic paradox, lexical mutation,
neologism, phonological Germanization, verbalization,
economy, wordplay, and superlativization.
Similarly, N.N. Grankova includes phenomena such as
neologization, broadening and transformation of
meaning,
borrowing,
verbalization
of
nouns,
superlativization,
phonetic
Germanization,
simplification, wordplay, and narrowing of meaning
among the methods of youth slang formation. She also
provides a frequency-based comparison of these word
formation phenomena.Y.M.Kazachkova esa yoshlar
slengini shakllantiruvchi quyidagi usullarni sanab
o‘tgan : desemantizatsiya; o‘zlashmalar; mavjud model
va formantlar asosida so‘zyasash.
Additionally, A.M. Kolesnichenko identified two
models of slang formation: the lexical-semantic model
and the word-formation model. He outlines four types
within the lexical-semantic model:
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
42
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
1.
Pejoration (transition of a term from a generic
noun to a proper noun);
2.
Transition of a term from one proper noun to
another;
3.
Transition of a term from a proper noun to a
generic noun;
4.
Transition of a term from one generic noun to
another.
The word-formation model includes methods such as
affixation, root reduction, conversion, suffixless
formation, addition, and supplementation.
T.E. Zakharchenko, after studying the slang system in
Russian and English lexicons, lists the following word-
formation methods: sound imitation, metaphor, word
compounding, affixation, abbreviation, conversion,
reduction, and borrowing.
Ye.V. Lyubiskaya, in her study of youth slang,
emphasizes that slang formation primarily occurs
through wordplay and borrowing methods.
Russian linguist A.F. Zhuravlev classifies the system of
nomination methods in the Russian language as
follows: Creating an unmotivated arbitrary sign (word);
Using an existing nominative unit in a new semantic
function; Lexical-semantic transformation of a word;
Broadening and narrowing of meaning; Metaphor;
Synecdoche; Semantic compression; Metonymy;
Creating a formally new nominative unit (word
formation); Word formation based on phonetic
combinations;
Compositional
word
formation;
Lexicalization of word combinations; Abbreviation;
Phrase formation; Borrowing; Calquing, among others.
The researcher also provides a detailed analysis of the
diverse specific manifestations of these methods.
Our observations show that the classification of slang
formation methods is also reflected in Y.E.
Matyushenko’s research. He emphasizes that slang
phenomena are typically formed based on figurative
meanings and categorizes them as follows: lexical-
semantic, morphological, morpho-syntactic, lexico-
syntactic, and borrowing. Matyushenko highlights that
the most frequent methods of slang formation are
affixation, metaphorization, and borrowing from
foreign languages.
Thus, slang is an open system, continuously interacting
with external and environmental factors. As a result of
this interaction, new lexical units emerge. All these
new lexical units arise through one of the slang
formation methods, and their use and acceptance by
members of a linguistic community grant them the
status of slang vocabulary. In texts and speech, slang
serves as a lexical tool that influences the reader,
shapes their worldview and behavior, and affects their
perception and evaluation of the surrounding
environment (at lexical and morpho-syntactic
language levels). From this perspective, two opposing
processes occur within the slang system: it either fades
into complete obsolescence or transitions to a higher
linguistic level, becoming part of the literary norm.
Based on these studies and the characteristics of the
Uzbek language, it becomes possible to identify the
methods and tools for the formation of slang units in
Uzbek.
Lexical-Semantic Method:
d)
Slang Units Based on Metonymy
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
43
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The existence of such slang units in the Uzbek
language is confirmed by the following examples:
a) The name of a plant is transferred to a product made
from its fruit or another part of the plant:
- (The juice of grapes
–
grape juice as the primary
meaning; vodka as the derived meaning):
“The juice of grapes cures many things. It will heal
your illness too, drink it, you wretch!”* (MS. 1,170).
- (Coffee
–
a tropical plant from whose seeds a special
drink is prepared, coffee tree as the primary meaning;
powdered or granulated drink as the derived
meaning):
“Until then, I’ll prepare the coffee,”* she thought to
herself (MS. 1, 148).
b) The name of one of two (or several) objects that are
typically associated in time and space is transferred to
the other:
-
“Brighten up with Fanta!” (Zo‘r TV).
-
“Stay in tune with Pepsi!” (Zo‘r TV).
-
“Adrenaline Classic: The new taste!” (Sevimli).
c) The name of one object is transferred to another
object or phenomenon associated with it:
-
“In Samarkand, a collision between a Jiguli and a
Spark resulted in the death of one of the drivers”
(Daryo.uz official channel, July 19, 2021).
-
“A 27
-year-old citizen in Namangan was charged
with
stealing a Karcher apparatus from a car wash”
(Daryo.uz official channel, July 19, 2021).
d) The name of a quality is transferred to an object
possessing that quality:
-
“It won’t be done without forty ‘blues’,” he said
(MS. 1,169).
-
“Four ‘bald’ ones will suffice,” he said (from spoken
language).
Such transfers can lead to the creation of new words
through the lexical-semantic method.
e) The name of a place can be used in speech to mean
an “institution”:
-
“That place doesn’t seem quite
suitable. How about
we book ‘Pekin’?” (Sh. 4, 198).
-
“They’re guests. The table was ordered at
‘Orchidea.’ The restaurant owner looked at him as if to
say, ‘Don’t you even know that?’” (Sh. 4, 200).
In the examples, Pekin and Orchidea are names of
restaurants in Moscow as mentioned in the text.
-
“’You already know what kind of ‘resort’ it is,’
Halimjon said, then explained in response to Asadbek’s
look, which seemed to say, ‘How should I know? Have
I been imprisoned a few times?’: ‘They abru
ptly
stopped the investigation and transferred him to a
mental hospital.’” (Sh. 4,256).
The term resort [German kurort < kur
–
treatment + ort
–
place] typically refers to a place with natural
therapeutic features (e.g., springs, muds) for rest and
tr
eatment or a facility in such a location (O‘TIL, 2, 505).
In the example, however, in the slang of criminals, it is
used to mean “prison.”
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
44
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Thus, metonymy is present here as well, but it is not
linguistic metonymy; rather, it is speech metonymy.
Metonymy is the use of one expression for another
based on their mutual connection or association, which
gives rise to slang units. Conversational slang arises in
spoken language based on the relationships between
events, phenomena, and objects.
2.
Slang Units Formed Based on Metaphor
In the Uzbek language, the most common type of slang
units, in terms of their formation method, is those
created through metaphor. A metaphor is the use of a
lexeme, based on a similarity in the essence of objects
or phenomena, to designate other objects and
phenomena beyond its typical meaning.
O.V. Fomenko emphasizes that one of the primary
means of slang formation is metaphor. He notes that
slang metaphors differ from literary and poetic
metaphors due to their distinctiveness and emergence
within cognitive processes. Slang units, as metaphors,
establish evaluative-expressive relationships with
objects and are distinguished by their national-cultural
functions.
M.M. Makovsky repeatedly highlights: “Language is a
unique graveyard of metaphors: a word that once
existed as a metaphor eventually loses its metaphorical
quality over time and is often reshaped into a new form
that no longer resembles its original metaphorical
nature.”
According to the scholar Sh. Maxmaraimova,
“Metaphorical terms, due to their attributive nature,
are primarily formed based on comparisons with
household items and objects related to nature. For
example, in the Uzbek language, the word ‘kuchukcha’
(@) represents a user’s email address, and this term is
also used as ‘sobachka’ in Russian. Due to its social
integration within the linguistic community, this word
should be regarded not as a technical term but as a
designation. This is because th
e word ‘sobachka’
originates from the native layer of the Russian
language through the influence of metaphorical
transfer. The reason for considering this word as a
designation is that the word ‘sobachka’ serves to
denote one specific object from another specific object
through metaphor. Taking into account that this word
has been transferred to other languages through
calquing, the term ‘kuchukcha’ (sobachka) in its
essence proves that the Russian designation has also
become a designation in the Uzbek lang
uage.”
Russian linguist Aminova points out that metaphors
hold a primary place in the lexical-semantic enrichment
of the slang system (constituting 28% in English and
19.2% in French). Metaphorization revitalizes the slang
system by introducing new semantic nuances into the
structure of existing words.
In conversational speech, and generally in other
functional styles of language, slang units formed based
on metaphors are frequently used. The models of slang
formation through metaphors are as follows
e)
Human Body Parts
→
Humans:
“Burun” (nose –
primary lexical meaning: a person’s
nose; derived meaning: high-ranking individuals):
“If they had served the ‘nose men,’ they wouldn’t have
lived in such disgrace.” (MS. 1,190).
“Ofatijon” (disaster –
primary lexical meaning:
someone bothersome; tormenting lover; derived
meaning: a stunningly beautiful woman who
captivates and overwhelms):
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
45
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
“Honestly, it’s hard to believe someone as stunning as
you hasn’t been to a restaurant.” (MS. 1,155).
“Popuk” (tassel –
primary lexical meaning: a bundle of
threads, feathers, or strings used as decoration;
derived meaning: to bring someone down, deflate
their arrogance):
“I wanted to lower his ‘tassel’ a bit.” (MS. 1,170).
“Go‘dak” (infant –
primary lexical meaning: a nursing
child, usually under one year old; derived meaning:
inexperienced, immature person):
“Can you imagine these ‘infants’ trampling on his
pride?!” (MS. 1,173).
b) Animals
→
Humans:
“Ko‘rsichqon” (mole –
derived meaning: a person who
works with documents).
“Tulki”
(fox
–
derived meaning: a cunning person).
“Ilon” (snake –
derived meaning: someone who speaks
maliciously).
R. Abdullaeva, in her study of the use of the zoonym
“tulki” (fox) to refer to human characteristics,
highlights the following conclusions based on
dictionary definitions:
1.
In both Uzbek and Russian, the zoonym “tulki”
is used metaphorically to denote cunning, deceit, and
falsehood, and it refers to individuals with such traits.
2.
In both languages, the zoonym “tulki” can be
used in speech independently to express its
metaphorical meaning. From this perspective, this
metaphorical meaning is utilized in the use of slang
units.
c) «Food»
→
Humans:
•
“Kadi” (pumpkin –
refers to a person of Tajik
ethnicity).
•
“Gilos” (cherry –
refers to a person of Iranian
ethnicity).
•
“Bodring” (cucumber –
refers to someone with
a long, narrow head).
•
“Chalpak” (flatbread –
refers to a person living
in a village).
•
“Ayron” (a yogurt
-based drink
–
refers to a
lethargic or passive person).
Z. Jumayev notes:
“The dive
rse linguistic associations connected to
culinary practices are rooted in the working process of
culinary professionals and the specific characteristics
of the dishes they prepare, forming certain images.
Many idiomatic expressions are shaped by this
image
ry. For instance, the idiom ‘zuvalasi pishiq’ (well
-
kneaded dough) originates from the metaphorical
representation of dough kneading. The more
thoroughly the dough is kneaded and processed, the
higher its quality, and the resulting portions (zuvalalar)
are firmer. This phenomenon, when applied to people,
generates the metaphorical meaning of ‘physically
strong and robust, unusually fit for their age’
[O‘TIL.II.162].”
d) «Specific Object»
→
Humans:
•
“Kunda” (beam –
refers to a student staring
blankly without understanding).
•
“Devor” (wall –
refers to a shameless person).
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
46
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
40-46
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Thus, these examples from conversational speech are
slang units formed through metaphorical means,
confirming that slang in the Uzbek language is often
created based on metaphors.
REFERENCES
1.
Abdullaeva, R. (2021). The Role of Metonymy in
Slang Formation: Comparative Analysis of Uzbek
and Russian. Linguistic Journal, 34(2), 145-158.
2.
Aminova, N. (2018). Metaphorization as a Tool for
Enriching the Slang System: A Comparative Study
of English and French. International Journal of
Linguistic Research, 12(4), 234-245.
3.
Fomenko, O.V. (2015). Slang Metaphors and Their
Cognitive and Cultural Implications. Slavic
Languages Review, 19(3), 87-101.
4.
Jumayev, Z. (2020). Linguistic Associations in
Culinary
Metaphors:
Insights
from
Uzbek
Language. Philological Studies, 28(1), 79-95.
5.
Kolesnichenko, A.M. (2017). Lexical-Semantic and
Word-Formation Models in Slang Development.
Moscow Linguistic Papers, 14(6), 45-62.
6.
Maxmaraimova, Sh. (2022). The Formation of
Metaphorical Terms in Uzbek and Russian
Languages. Comparative Linguistics, 29(2), 119-133.
7.
Matyushenko, Y.E. (2019). Classification of Slang
Formation
Methods:
A
Lexical-Semantic
Perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(5), 203-
219.
8.
Makovsky, M.M. (2005). The Life Cycle of
Metaphors in Language Evolution. Linguistic
Theory Today, 21(1), 33-49.
9.
Zakharchenko, T.E. (2016). Word-Formation
Processes in Russian and English Slang. East-West
Linguistic Studies, 10(3), 102-117.
