International Journal Of Literature And Languages
110
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue03 2025
PAGE NO.
110-113
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue03-29
Comparative analysis of structural principles in
multilingual dictionaries
Ruzimov Sherali Saliyevich
Ph.D. Student, RK, Nukus State Pedagogical Institute, Uzbekistan
Received:
26 January 2025;
Accepted:
28 February 2025;
Published:
27 March 3025
Abstract:
This study investigates the structural principles of eight multilingual dictionaries encompassing English,
Uzbek, and Russian, spanning domains such as anatomy, chemistry, economics, mathematics, computer science,
taxation, spirituality, and general usage. The aim is to compare their organizational strategies, entry formats, and
supplementary features to assess their effectiveness in meeting the needs of diverse target audiences, including
students, professionals, and language learners.
A comparative analysis was conducted on the dictionaries’ structural elements, including entry arrangement
(alphabetical order, starting language, directionality), semantic depth (explanatory notes, synonyms, examples),
grammatical and phonetic information, and supplementary features (e.g., tables, guides). The dictionaries were
evaluated based on their accessibility, usability, and domain-specific utility, drawing from examples and structural
patterns observed in each work.
Findings reveal that all dictionaries adopt alphabetical ordering, but their starting languages and directionality
vary, reflecting intended users
—
e.g., bidirectional structures (A. Qosimov & M. Qosimova) enhance versatility,
while unidirectional English-first designs (M. Shokirova & Sh. Nurullayev) prioritize scientific audiences. Semantic
depth differs, with detailed annotations in anatomy and chemistry dictionaries aiding learners, contrasted by
concise, practical entries in taxation and economics dictionaries. Grammatical markers and phonetic transcription
are inconsistently provided, with most lacking pronunciation guides, limiting accessibility for non-native speakers.
Supplementary features like periodic tables or abbreviation lists enhance usability in some cases.
The dictionaries’ structures align with their specialized purposes, balancing accessibility and depth. However, the
widespread absence of phonetic transcription and inconsistent grammatical detail hinder their effectiveness for
language learners. Future editions could integrate these elements to improve utility across diverse audiences.
Keywords:
Multilingual dictionaries, Structural principles, Lexicography, Domain-specific terminology, User
accessibility.
Introduction:
Multilingual dictionaries serve as critical
tools for bridging linguistic and cultural gaps,
particularly in specialized fields where precise
terminology is essential. This study examines the
structural principles of eight multilingual dictionaries,
all of which include English, Uzbek, and Russian, and
span various domains such as anatomy, chemistry,
economics, mathematics, computer science, taxation,
spirituality, and general usage. These dictionaries are:
English-Uzbek-Russian,
Uzbek-English-Russian
Dictionary of Anatomic Terms by A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova (2006), English-Uzbek-Russian Dictionary of
Chemistry Terms by M. Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev
(2013), English-Uzbek-Russian dictionary of tax and
economic terms by A. Saidov and D. Yaxyoyeva (2008),
English-Russian-Uzbek dictionary for mathematics
specialists by G. Sobirova et al. (2004), Universal
Dictionary by Z. Nuritdinova et al. (2012), English-
Russian-Uzbek Educational Dictionary of Computer
Science by D. Volkoviskaya et al. (2005), Uzbek-English-
Russian dictionary of economic terms by T. Ergashev
(2001), and Key to perfection: Uzbek-Russian-English
dictionary of spirituality by N. Mahmudov et al. (2006).
By comparing their organizational strategies, entry
formats, and supplementary features, this analysis
highlights their strengths and shortcomings in meeting
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
111
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
the needs of their target audiences.
METHODS
The study employed a qualitative comparative
approach to analyze the structural principles of eight
multilingual dictionaries. Materials included the
dictionaries themselves,
sourced from Uzbek
publishers, covering specialized fields. Procedures
began with their selection, ensuring all included
English, Uzbek, and Russian, followed by a detailed
examination. Each dictionary was assessed for four
aspects: organizational structure (e.g., alphabetical
order, directionality), entry content (e.g., explanatory
notes, synonyms), grammatical/phonetic details (e.g.,
word classes, transcription), and supplementary
features (e.g., tables, guides). Data collection involved
extracting specific entries (e.g.
, “acetic acid” from M.
Shokirova & Sh. Nurullayev, p. 20) and documenting
observations in a structured format.
Analytical methods comprised qualitative comparison
and content analysis. The former evaluated structural
variations
—
such as A. Qosimov and M. Q
osimova’s
bidirectional design versus M. Shokirova and Sh.
Nurullayev’s unidirectional flow—
against criteria like
accessibility and audience suitability. Content analysis
dissected entry components (e.g., definitions,
examples) to assess semantic depth and usability,
comparing educational richness (e.g., A. Qosimov & M.
Qosimova) with practical brevity (e.g., A. Saidov & D.
Yaxyoyeva). Grammatical and phonetic inclusion was
critiqued for learner support, noting widespread
transcription absences. Supplementary features were
reviewed for added value, such as M. Shokirova and Sh.
Nurullayev’s periodic table.
Findings were synthesized narratively, highlighting
strengths (e.g., detailed annotations) and weaknesses
(e.g., phonetic gaps), with examples cited by page
number. This method ensured a replicable process:
acquire the dictionaries, analyze the same structural
elements, apply consistent qualitative criteria, and
report findings with specific evidence. Adjustments for
edition variations may be needed, but the approach
remains robust for replication.
RESULTS
The study achieved a comprehensive evaluation of
eight multilingual dictionaries (English, Uzbek, Russian)
across domains like anatomy, chemistry, and
economics, revealing their structural strengths and
limitations. All dictionaries adopt alphabetical order,
with organizational results varying: A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova’s
bidirectional
anatomy
dictionary
effectively serves diverse medical users, while M.
Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev’s unidirectional
chemistry dictionary optimizes for English-first
learners. Entry content analysis shows A. Qosimov and
M. Qosimova detailing 4500+ terms with notes,
enhancing medical education, whereas D. Volkoviskaya
et al. enrich tech vocabulary with phrasal verbs, and A.
Saidov and D. Yaxyoyeva prioritize practical tax
phrases. Grammatical findings indicate limited detail
—
G. Sobirova et al. provide word classes, but most lack
phonetic transcription (e.g., “apex” without [ˈeɪ.peks]),
reducing learner support. Supplementary features
prove impactful: M. Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev’s
periodic table boosts chemistry usability, yet many lack
aids like tables of contents. Results highlight strengths,
such as flexibility in bidirectional designs and depth in
annotations. However, weaknesses like transcription
gaps and errors were also identified (e.g., Z.
Nuritdinova et al.’s “ecmoq”). The study concludes that
while specialized needs are met, integrating phonetic
and grammatical enhancements would elevate these
dictionaries’ effecti
veness for broader audiences.
DISCUSSION
Organizational Structure and Entry Arrangement
A fundamental aspect of dictionary structure is the
arrangement of entries. All eight dictionaries adopt an
alphabetical order, a standard practice in lexicography
that enhances accessibility. However, their starting
languages and directional approaches differ, reflecting
their intended users. For instance, A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova’s dictionary employs a bidirectional
structure: the first half is English-Uzbek-Russian, while
the second half shifts to Uzbek-English-Russian, marked
by bold black text for Uzbek entries. This dual
arrangement caters to both English-speaking learners
seeking Uzbek and Russian equivalents and Uzbek-
speaking users needing translations into English and
Russian, making it versatile for medical students and
professionals.
Similarly, T. Ergashev’s dictionary begins with Uzbek
entries followed by English and Russian equivalents,
prioritizing native Uzbek speakers, such as students and
economic professionals, who require foreign language
equivalents. In contrast, M. Shokirova and Sh.
Nurullayev’s dictionary and G. Sobirova et al.’s work
adopt
a
unidirectional
English-Russian-Uzbek
sequence, aligning with the dominance of English as an
international scientific language. This structure suits
learners and researchers familiar with English as the
primary academic medium. D. Volkoviskaya et al.’s
dictionary and A. Saidov and D. Yaxyoyeva’s dictionary
also start with English, reflecting the global influence of
English in technology and international economics.
However, N. Mahmudov et al.’s dictionary opts for an
Uzbek-Russian-English order, emphasizing cultural and
spiritual concepts rooted in Uzbek heritage, targeting a
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
112
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
broad audience including foreign learners of Uzbek.
Meanwhile, Z. Nuritdinova et al.’s Universal dictionary
uses English as the base language.
The choice of starting language and directionality
reveals a dictionary’s intended audience and purpose.
Bidirectional dictionaries like A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova’s offer greater utility for diverse users,
whereas unidirectional ones, such as M. Shokirova and
Sh. Nurullayev’s, prioritize efficiency for a specific
linguistic flow, often at the expense of broader
accessibility.
Entry Content and Semantic Depth
The depth and presentation of semantic information
within entries vary significantly across these
dictionaries, reflecting their domain-specific goals. A.
Qosimov and M. Qosimova’s work excels in providing
detailed equivalents for over 4500 terms, often
including explanatory notes in parentheses (e.g.,
“olfactory region –
ҳид билиш соҳаси (бурун шиллиқ
пардаси) –
обонятельная область” [4: 69]), enhancing
comprehension for beginners. It also lists multiple
meanings (e.g., “articulation” wi
th three distinct
senses) and phrase examples (e.g., “arch of foot”),
making it a robust tool for medical education.
M. Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev’s work similarly
enriches entries with explanatory notes (e.g., “acetic
acid
–
sirka kislota C2H4O2 (o‘tkir
hidi bor, rangsiz
suyuq modda)” [6: 20]), supplemented by a periodic
table and chemical formula reading guides. This
additional content caters to chemistry students
needing
both
translation
and
conceptual
understanding. In contrast, A. Saidov and D.
Yaxyo
yeva’s work focuses on practical phrases (e.g.,
“Automated system of customs clearance –
Tovarlarni
bojxonadagi
rasmiylashtiruvidan
o‘tkazishning
avtomatlashtirilgan tizimi
–
Автоматизированная
система таможенного оформления товаров” [5: 7])
and synonyms (
e.g., “actual cost (value)” and “real
value” [5: 5]), prioritizing usability for tax professionals
over exhaustive definitions.
D. Volkoviskaya et al.’s work stands out with its
inclusion of phrasal verbs (e.g., “back
-out -
отменять
(изменения), восстанавливать –
(o‘zgarishlarni) bekor
qilmoq, (dastlabki holatni) tiklamoq” [8: 11]) and
irregular verb forms (e.g., “draw (drew, drawn)” [8:
39]), alongside abbreviations like “IT –
см information
technology” [8: 63] reflecting the dynamic terminology
of technol
ogy. G. Sobirova et al.’s dictionary provides
synonyms and phrase examples (e.g., “union of sets –
объединение множеств –
to‘plamlar yig‘indisi,
birlashmasi” [7: 68]), but its lack of transcription limits
its pedagogical value. T. Ergashev’s publication in
cludes
alternative Uzbek terms (e.g., “Банкротлик (синиш) –
Bankruptcy, crash
–
Банкрот, банкротство” [1: 9]) and
abbreviations (e.g., “ECU”), enhancing its relevance for
economic practitioners.
N. Mahmudov et al.’s work offers nuanced entries with
histori
cal annotations (e.g., “vazir” with modern and
archaic senses), using punctuation like semicolons and
parallel lines to distinguish meanings and grammatical
roles (e.g., “Абадий –
вечный//вечно” [2: 15]).
However, Z. Nuritdinova et al.’s work struggles wit
h
lacking transcription or detailed grammatical markers,
reducing its utility for learners:
abjure to state publicly that you no longer agree with a
belief or way of behaving. He abjured his religion/his
life of dissipation.
–
отказываться, отрекаться –
voz
kechmoq, bosh tortmoq, tonmoq. [3: 5].
Dictionaries with richer semantic content, such as
those by A. Qosimov and M. Qosimova and M.
Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev, are more effective for
educational purposes, while those prioritizing brevity,
like A. Sai
dov and D. Yaxyoyeva’s, cater to practical
application.
Grammatical and Phonetic Information
Grammatical and phonetic details are crucial for
language learners, yet their inclusion varies across
these dictionaries. G. Sobirova et al.’s publication
mar
ks word classes (e.g., “angle (n)”), a feature rare
among the others, aiding users in understanding
grammatical roles. D. Volkoviskaya et al.’s publication
provides verb conjugations (e.g., “break (broke,
broken)”) and phrasal verbs, enhancing its utility
for
technical translation. N. Mahmudov et al.’s publication
uses symbols like “//” to indicate conversion (e.g.,
“Дадил –
смелий // смело” [2: 51]), offering subtle
grammatical insights.
Conversely, A. Qosimov and M. Qosimova’s
publication, M. Shokirova an
d Sh. Nurullayev’s
publication, A. Saidov and D.Yaxyoyeva’s publication,
and T. Ergashev’s work omit explicit word class labels,
assuming user familiarity with the domain. Z.
Nuritdinova et al.’s publication inconsistently marks
categories (e.g., “wantonness noun [U]”), but errors in
transcription (e.g., “Gg [dzi:]” [3: 4] instead of [ʤi:])
undermine its reliability.
Phonetic transcription is notably absent in most
dictionaries, a significant drawback for learners. For
instance, the absence of transcription in A. Qosimov
and M. Qosimova’s dictionary limits pronunciation
guidance (e.g., apex could have been rendered as
[ˈeɪ.peks]). This critique also applies to the dictionaries
by M. Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev, A. Saidov and D.
Yaxyoyeva, G. Sobirova et al., and D. Volkoviskaya et al.
Only Z. Nuritdinova et al. attempts transcription in its
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
113
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
alphabet guide, but errors render it ineffective. This
omission across specialized dictionaries limits their
effectiveness for non-native speakers unfamiliar with
English pronunciation.
Supplementary Features and Usability
Supplementary features enhance a dictionary’s
usability. The Shokirova and Nurullayev publication
includes a periodic table, formula reading guides, and
borrowed word lists (e.g., “a.m. ante meridiem
- kun
yarmidan oldin -
до полудня” [6: 327]), making it
a
comprehensive resource. The dictionary by D.
Volkoviskaya et al. offers abbreviations and phrase
examples, while the Ergashev publication lists
organizations (e.g., “ЮНИДО (БМТнинг саноатни
ривожлантириш бўйича ташкилоти)
- UNIDO (United
Nations Industry Development Organization) -
ЮНИДО
(Организация ООН по развитию промышленности)”
[1: 57]) and synonyms, boosting practical utility. The
Qosimov and Qosimova publication provides alphabets
for all three languages, aiding navigation. However, the
Saidov and Yaxyoyeva publication lacks transcription,
reducing accessibility. The works by G. Sobirova et al.
and Z. Nuritdinova et al. omit tables of contents, a
feature whose absence is unusual for usability and
complicates term lookup. The Mahmudov et al.
publication compensates with its focus on cultural
annotations, though it lacks phonetic aids.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths vary by dictionary. A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova’s bidirectional structure and detailed notes
excel for medical education. M. Shokirova and Sh.
Nurullayev’s
supplementary
materials
support
chemistry learners. D. Volkoviskaya et al.’s verb forms
and abbreviations suit tech professionals, while T.
Ergashev’s
alternative
terms
aid
economic
practitioners. N. Mahmudov et al.’s cultural de
pth
serves spiritual learners, and A. Saidov and D.
Yaxyoyeva’s synonyms enhance tax
-related translation.
Weaknesses include the widespread lack of
transcription, limiting pronunciation guidance, and
inconsistent grammatical detail, as seen in A. Saidov
and D. Yaxyoyeva and Z. Nuritdinova et al.. Z.
Nuritdinova et al.’s typographical errors, such as ecmoq
instead of esmoq in “breath 1. [U] the air that goes into
and out of your lungs. ... -
(o‘zb.) nafas olmoq, nafas
chiqarmoq, ecmoq (shamol)” [3: 73] furth
er detract
from usability.
CONCLUSION
The structural principles of these multilingual
dictionaries reflect their specialized purposes,
balancing accessibility, depth, and practicality.
Bidirectional designs (e.g., A. Qosimov and M.
Qosimova) offer flexibility, while rich annotations (e.g.,
M. Shokirova and Sh. Nurullayev) enhance learning.
However, the absence of phonetic transcription and
inconsistent grammatical markers across most
dictionaries hinder their effectiveness for language
learners. Future editions should integrate phonetic
transcription and consistent grammatical markers,
leveraging the strengths of each dictionary to enhance
usability for diverse audiences.
REFERENCES
Ergashev, T. (2001). Iqtisodiy atamalarning o‘zbekcha
-
inglizcha-ruscha
lug‘ati
(Uzbek
-English-Russian
dictionary of economic terms). Toshkent: Sharq.
Mahmudov, N., Saidqulov, Z., & Sotimov, G‘. (2006).
Komillik kaliti: ma’naviyatdan o‘zbekcha
-ruscha-
inglizcha lug‘at (Key to perfection: Uzbek
-Russian-
English
dictionary
of
spirituality).
Toshkent:
Ma’naviyat.
Nuritdinova, Z., Abduqodirov, A., & Ergasheva, M.
(2012). Universal lug‘at (Universal dictionary: English
explanatory dictionary with short Russian and Uzbek
translations). Toshkent: Yurist-media markazi.
Qosimov, A., & Qosimova, M. (2006). English-Uzbek-
Russian, Uzbek-English-Russian Dictionary of Anatomic
Terms. Toshkent: Mehridaryo.
Saidov, A., & Yaxyoyeva, D. (2008). Inglizcha-
o‘zbekcha
-
ruscha soliq va iqtisodiyot atamalari lug‘ati (English
-
Uzbek-Russian dictionary of tax and economic terms).
Toshkent: Davlat soliq qo‘mitasi soliq akademiyasi.
Shokirova, M., & Nurullayev, Sh. (2013). English-Uzbek-
Russian Dictionary of Chemistry Terms. Toshkent:
Tafakkur-
Bo‘stoni.
Sobirova, G., Artikova, Yu., Pidayeva, Sh., &
Djumabayeva, I. Sh. (2004). Inglizcha-ruscha-
o‘zbekcha
lug‘at (matematika mutaxassislari uchun) (English
-
Russian-Uzbek dictionary for mathematics specialists).
Toshkent.
Volkoviskaya, D. I., Peremqulova, A., & Hakimov, M. X.
(2005). Inglizcha-ruscha-
o‘zbekcha kompyuter ilmi
bo‘yicha
o‘quv
lug‘ati
(English
-Russian-Uzbek
Educational Dictionary of Computer Science).
Toshkent.
