International Journal Of Literature And Languages
82
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
82-84
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue07-22
Binary Nomenclature in Vitigrowing Terms: Structural-
Semantic Approach
Nuriddinova Nafisa Mukhiddin qizi
Independent researcher at Samarkand State University, named after Sharof Rashidov, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 May 2025;
Accepted:
27 June 2025;
Published:
29 July 2025
Abstract:
This work is devoted to the problem of secondary naming (synonymous and alternative terms) in
viticulture. The study analyzes the fact that the same grape varieties, diseases or agrotechnical processes are
called by different names in different regions, which leads to uncertainties in scientific and practical aspects. The
main reasons for secondary naming are explained by oral traditions, historical terms, language and dialect
differences, and the lack of a single standard in scientific naming. Also, the need to create a single terminological
system based on international standards is justified as a solution to this problem. The work highlights the
relevance of forming a single term base to reduce secondary naming, correctly identify grape varieties, and
simplify scientific communication.
Keywords:
Viticulture, terminology, secondary naming, synonymous terms, naming system, international
standard, harmonization of terms, grape varieties, scientific classification, term base.
Introduction:
Terms are special lexical units with a clear
meaning, used within a specific field, science or
technical system. They serve as a means of ensuring the
clarity, comprehensibility and coherence of scientific
and practical speech. The specific properties of terms
indicate that they are clear, systematic, objective,
concise and stable lexical units within the framework of
science. Therefore, the system of terms is an important
basis for the development of any science and field.
Through them, scientific thinking, analysis of the
environment and the ability to express concepts
expand. In this regard, secondary naming plays an
important role in enriching the specific properties of
terms and creates clarity (through semantic
narrowing), ensures adaptation to the system, serves
as a bridge between the vernacular and the language of
science, and also creates stable and emotionally
neutral terms. After all, secondary naming is not only a
method of creating new terms, but also an effective
means of enriching and developing the existing
terminological system. In the theory of terminology,
secondary naming is considered an important semantic
phenomenon, this process means the creation of new
terms based on the assignment of new, often sectoral
or metaphorical meanings to existing lexical units. This
process serves as a bridge between the vernacular and
the scientific language. Terminological systems are
closely related to the development of industries, and
primary and secondary naming play an important role
in their formation. In particular, in the field of
viticulture, along with scientific terms, there are also
figurative, contextual or regional names used in the
vernacular, which are studied in linguistics as
secondary naming.
METHODOLOGY
In world linguistics, there are valuable sources on the
role of language in the lexical system and the
requirements for the verbalization of terms, which are
especially clearly expressed in the fundamental works
of D. Lotte, G. Vinokur, A. Reformatsky, E. Dresen. In
particular, A. Reformatsky, emphasizing in his views
that a term is not a word, but a special lexical unit
within a specific science, that is, a term, divides them
into different groups according to their active use, and
also notes that terms can often be formed through
secondary naming, that is, the use of existing words in
a new, specialized meaning. [2, 39]
According to the studied sources in international
linguistics, secondary naming is associated with the
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
83
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
economy and flexibility of the language. According to
him, terminological units are formed by giving new
meanings to existing words instead of creating a new
term. This is an effective method, especially in practical
areas. D. S. Lotte, in his work “Fundamentals of the
Formation of Scientific and Technical Terminology:
Issues of Theory and Methodology”, presents
secondary naming as the main model in the creation of
scientific and technical terms and analyzes such
problems as the selection, systematization, accuracy
and coherence of terms. [1,143] According to T.S.
Kabanova, secondary naming occurs mainly through
semantic means - metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche.
She substantiates with examples the use of existing
simple words in new meanings in such areas as
technology, medicine, agriculture. In this regard, she
notes the formation of specialized terms based on
semantic expansion.
In Uzbek linguistics, Sh. Rahmatullayev paid special
attention to this issue. In his work “Lexicology of the
Modern Uzbek Literary Language”, the folk and
national foundations of secondary naming are
revealed. He emphasizes the widespread use of this
process in many areas, in particular, in viticulture,
animal husbandry, and handicrafts. [3,47] For example,
such popular words as “hand”, “eye”, and “foot” are
used in viticulture as secondary terms with a different
semantic load. Such names show that they are an
expression of the harmony of the folk language with
the scientific language. This situation is especially
clearly expressed in the terminology of viticulture. This
issue is also reflected in scientific works - articles and
dissertations written by many Uzbek linguists. They
deeply analyze the linguosemantic features of
secondary names, the formation of terms based on folk
lexicon, and the process of their systematization.
From the analysis of the above literature, it can be seen
that secondary naming is an important factor in
language development, especially as a basis for the
natural formation of specialized terminology. Through
this process, scientific terms become closer to folk
concepts, and the language of science acquires
nationality and imagery. Several methods are
important in studying terms. In our opinion, studying
the phenomenon of secondary naming in the lexical
layer of viticulture terminology belonging to the field of
horticulture using the method of semantic analysis is
important in determining the lexical and contextual
meanings of units belonging to this field. In many cases,
taking into account the fact that viticulture terms are
adopted from other fields or other languages (Russian,
Tajik, Arabic), etymological analysis allows us to
determine the historical roots and ways of formation.
The method of structural analysis, which analyzes
terms in a lexical-structural system, shows the logical
and semantic relationship of terms to each other. For
example, it is possible to determine the hierarchy of
terms such as “vineyard”, “grape cultivation”, “grape
variety” within a field. In particular, in the
onomasiological approach, it is possible to clearly
conclude that the same concept can be expressed by
several words (or vice versa) with secondary naming.
For example: “branch”, “stem”, “scissors”, “sop”
- can
be used in relation to several things.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
Secondary naming is the use of language units in a
different form and content, in addition to their main
(primary) meaning. Such naming is often manifested in
the following forms: 1. Synonymous terms - different
names expressing the same concept (for example,
variety and sort). 2. Names in folk speech - elements of
ordinary folk language used instead of scientific terms
(for example, sherdoz, shirinbop instead of black
grapes). 3. Metaphorical or figurative names - naming
based on appearance or taste characteristics (for
example, Turgay language, eye-catching). 4. Regional
variants - lexical variants specific to regions (for
example, kand uzum in Fergana, angur in Bukhara).
According to our research, many terms in the field of
viticulture were originally borrowed from other fields
or from the national lexicon. Later, we can see that they
are formed as secondary terms with a semantic load
specific to viticulture.
Our research shows that secondary names in viticulture
terminology are mainly found in the following areas:
1. In variety names:
- Scientific: Katta Qora, Khusainiy, Kishmish rozaviy.
- Popular: Mayizbop, Guluzum, Qizgaldoq.
- Regional synonyms: Hilol uzum - in Andijan region,
Shahlo uzum - in Samarkand.
2. In technological terms:
- Scientific: grafting, grafting, irrigation norm.
- Ordinary folk: grafting, grafting, mulch irrigation.
3. In the names of construction and care methods:
- Scientific: espalier, archator, cluster method.
- Secondary: tying to a wire, fan picking.
Secondary names are based on the cultural, social and
ecological experience of the people. For centuries,
grape growing has influenced not only the agricultural
sector, but also folk folklore and toponymy. Therefore,
such terms can be semantically multilayered and multi-
meaning. For example, chilla grape - a variety that
ripens in the heat; namangonbop - a variety suitable for
the climate of a particular region; blue grape - a grape
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
84
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
variety that has not yet ripened or of a certain color.
Below we will consider the explanation of some lexicon
related to viticulture as a scientific term with secondary
nomenclature:
Vine
branch
—
Chop
—
Common
vernacular name; Red grape
—
Fire grape
—
Due to its
dark red color and brightness; Blue grape
—
Raw grape
—
Named when unripe; Sweet grape
—
Appetizing
—
Very sweet, with a pleasant taste; Chill grape
—
Ripening grape
—
Used for varieties that ripen during
the hot chilly period; Grassing
—
Joining
—
Method of
joining two vine branche.
Thus, our analysis shows that the study of secondary
nomenclature in linguistics allows us to identify
synonymy, variantness, and metaphor in the
terminological system, reveals the structure of lexical-
semantic fields, serves to include national-cultural
components in terminology, and also enriches regional
lexicon and dialectology. The study of viticulture
terminology is currently of significant scientific and
practical importance. Previously formed viticulture
terms were often developed on the basis of oral
experience and did not fully correspond to the scientific
method. In current research, these terms are being
revised based on modern linguistic, philological, and
agronomic approaches. This brings new perspectives to
the field. In the study of viticulture terminology,
biology, agronomy, linguistics, and computer science
are being integrated. In particular, the scientific names
of
grape
varieties,
terms
expressing
their
characteristics, and the naming of agrotechnical
processes
are
being
analyzed
clearly
and
systematically. Harmonization of Uzbek viticulture
terms with international terminology is one of the
current directions of scientific research. This process
allows for the international harmonization of scientific
works, educational textbooks and practical applications
on viticulture.
CONCLUSION
In viticulture, "dual nomenclature" (or synonymous
nomenclature) is the naming of plant varieties,
diseases, biological processes or technological
practices with alternative terms in different regions or
by scientists. This situation is considered an important
problem in the formation of a clear and unified system
in scientific terminology. For example, one grape
variety may be called "Black Kishmish" in one region,
and "Eastern Kishmish" in another region. This leads to
confusion in scientific research and exchange of
experience. The main reasons for the occurrence of
dual nomenclature are oral traditions among the
people, historical names, linguistic differences and
regional characteristics. In addition, different names
given at different times in scientific classification also
exacerbate this problem. Therefore, in modern
viticulture, a unified scientific nomenclature of
varieties based on international standards is
considered necessary. In conclusion, secondary
nomenclature in viticulture indicates the need to create
a unified terminology that is recognized equally in
scientific and practical terms. In this regard, national
and international systematization, harmonization of
literary sources, and maintaining an official register of
terms are relevant. In this way, terminological
accuracy, correct identification of grape varieties, and
increased research efficiency are achieved. The
widespread occurrence of secondary nomenclature in
viticulture terminology is of particular scientific interest
from a linguistic, cultural, and social point of view. By
analyzing such nomenclature structurally and
semantically, it is possible to further improve the
terminology of the field, standardize it, and create the
basis for electronic dictionaries. The study of viticulture
terminology is reaching a new level based on modern
scientific analysis and information technologies. This
direction serves the development of the science of
viticulture, the increase in the quality of education, and
scientific research that is clear, understandable and
globally recognized. Therefore, terminological studies
in this field are not only linguistic, but also one of the
urgent issues of agrarian science.
REFERENCES
Lotte D.S. (1961). Osnovy postroeniya nauchno
teknicheskoy terminologii. Voprosy theory and
methodology. Moscow.
Reformatsky A. A. (1970). Terminology and scientific
language. Moscow: Nauka. 256 p.
Komarova Z.I. (1991). Semantic structure of special
words and eyo lexicograficheskoe description. -
Sverdlovsk: Izd-vo Uralskogo universiteta.
Rakhmatullaev Sh. R. (1992). Lexicology of modern
Uzbek literary language.
—
Tashkent: Teacher.
Hojiyev A. (1985). Explanatory dictionary of linguistic
terms. Tashkent: Teacher.
Yusupov S. (2005). Methods of term creation in the
Uzbek language. Tashkent: Science.
Rajabov I. (2006). Lexicology of the Uzbek language.
Tashkent: Teacher.
Qodirova D. (2011). Semantic features of terms in the
Uzbek language. Tashkent: TDPU.
Zaynutdinov A. (2017). Uzbek terminology: problems
and solutions. Tashkent: Science and technology.
Jabborov Kh. (2020). Brief explanatory dictionary of
agricultural terms. Karshi.
Abdualimov E. et al. (2023). Explanatory dictionary of
agricultural terms. Tashkent: Uzbekistan.
