International Journal of Pedagogics
46
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
46-47
10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue05-12
1
Morphological Analysis of Lexical Units Related to Agrotourism
Mamadaliyeva Moxizarxon
Doctoral student of the Practical English Department, Fergana State University, Uzbekistan
Received:
09 March 2025;
Accepted:
05 April 2025;
Published:
08 May 2025
Abstract:
The article provides a comprehensive morphological analysis of lexical units specific to the field of
agrotourism, exploring the structural mechanisms underlying the formation and development of specialized
vocabulary. Emphasis is placed on productive word-formation processes in English, such as affixation,
compounding, conversion, and abbreviation, with illustrative examples drawn from agrotourism-related
discourse. The study highlights how these morphological strategies contribute to the precision, adaptability, and
semantic richness of the terminology used in agrotourism. It also discusses the influence of interdisciplinary
integration
—
particularly with ecology, gastronomy, and rural development
—
on the expansion of agrotourism
vocabulary. The findings underscore the dynamic nature of terminological growth in response to evolving
agricultural and tourism practices, and they reveal a tendency toward lexical innovation to accommodate
emerging concepts and services within this niche sector.
Keywords:
Analysis of lexical units, morphological analysis, agrotourism, formation, agricultural tourism
terminology.
Introduction:
Various aspects of English used in the
field of agriculture (farming methods, agricultural
systems) and in some fields related to agriculture
(agricultural zoology, agrotourism, biology, botany,
ecology, entomology, gastronomy, land measurement,
plant pathology, and zoology) are analyzed from
several perspectives. The continuous expansion of
human knowledge is associated with the formation of
new spheres of communication, where the use of
language takes on specific forms (professional and
scientific jargon), for example, English for agriculture. L.
Bloomfield suggests that professional and scientific
jargon is characterized by such characteristics as
accuracy, constant exchange of standard formulations,
precise definition of terms, widespread use of various
linguistic structures, the use of terms, numbers,
symbols and signs [1, p. 82-89].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
English for agriculture is characterized by its
professional vocabulary, in particular, terminology,
which makes it more informative and recognizable. The
majority of newly formed words, of course, are
memorized phrases (71%), which continue the long
tradition of updating scientific vocabulary “to meet
new needs in technical vocabulary, which arose partly
as a result of the Renaissance of education in Western
Europe in the XV and XVI centuries, known as the
Renaissance, and partly as a result of the industrial
revolution of the XVIII century and its scientific
consequences” [2, p.125].
For specific purposes, the English language uses several
morphological ways to compile its own list of terms
–
abbreviations, affixation (prefix, suffixation and plural
affixation), reverse formation, morphological stress
change, composition/addition, conscious/ deliberate
coining,
reduction,
transformation,
distortion,
deviation, origin from proper names or personal
surnames, folk/ common etymology [3, p. 48]. Only two
of these procedures seem to be extremely productive
in agriculture.
English: affixation and combination. But the large
proportion of words formed using combination forms
extracted from existing free words, or using developing
combination forms (43%), shows that agricultural
English can also resort to unorthodox means. Enrich
your vocabulary in search of new words to denote new
realities in the English language. agriculture, that is,
new agricultural concepts and practices related to
sustain
able agricultural systems, once again prove “the
universality and power of word formation processes in
the English language” [2, p. 67]. The results of the
International Journal of Pedagogics
47
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
conducted research prove that agricultural terminology
is multifunctional. It should be noted that many terms
refer to different languages. subsystems, for example:
mature is used in standard language as an adult,
mature; ripe; in medicine as a mature fruit; in genetics
as the morphological stability of plants.
Terminological units are characterized by hyper-
hyponymic relations. The origin of motivated terms is
based on metaphor, metonymy, and function transfer.
The semantic way of creating new terms is the most
productive when creating nouns. In the process of
determinization, terms lose their precision and
sometimes acquire emotionality.
There are three types of shape combinations:
1) forms borrowed from Greek or Latin, which are
derived from independent nouns, adjectives or verbs in
these languages: these combined forms are used in the
formation of memorized phrases, often semantically
parallel to independent words in English;
2) forms of independent English words: such unifying
forms usually have only separate, limited meanings of
free words and may phonetically differ from words;
3) forms extracted from existing free words and used
as related forms, usually preserving the meaning of free
words or some of their aspects [1, p. 54].
In word formation, a combination form can be
combined with an independent word, another
combination form, or an affix. The main ways of
forming the term are divided into designations (for
example, fertilizer, infiltration, irrigation, seeder,
separator); abbreviation (for example, AIMS -
Agricultural information management standards); a
phrase (for example, a sink-chopper, harvester,
pasture, small seed (box)).; transformation (for
example: engine - to engine, fallout - to radioactive
fallout, empty
–
to empty), etc.
The most common units among multicomponent terms
are two-component terms (about 69%, for example:
corn harvester, fruit sprayer, vegetable chopper).
Three-component terms are in second place (about
24%, for example: drum root crop, grain harvester
harvesting machine, high-speed cultivator, selective
weeding). Special terms of complex structure form the
main part of the analyzed terminological subsystem.
CONCLUSION
The present analysis has shown that the agritourism
sector generates a variety of characteristic lexical units
characterized by specific morphological structures.
Particularly striking is the set of compositions that
usually consist of domain-specific basic elements, such
as “farm”, “agriculture” or “vacation”, and convey
complex semantic content through their composition.
In addition, one can note the active use of derivative
processes, such as the formation of adjectives and
nouns, which contributes to the expansion of the
vocabulary of the technical language.
In addition to productive word-formation patterns, the
influence of external linguistic influences has become
evident, especially through Anglicisms such as
“glamping” or “farm stay”, which testifies to the
growing internationalization of agritourism. These
developments reflect not only linguistic innovations,
but also processes of social and economic
transformation.
Overall, the morphological analysis shows how closely
linguistic structure and professional communication
are interrelated. The knowledge gained contributes to
a better understanding of the technical language of
agritourism and at the same time provides a basis for
further linguistic, terminological or translation research
in this growing subject area.
REFERENCE
Bloomfield L. Linguistic Aspects of Science: Scientific
Words: their Structure and Meaning.
–
2000.
Gao, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2019). "Lexico-Semantic Analysis
of Tourism Texts: A Case Study of Chinese and English."
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 7(2),
74-83.
Carstairs-McCarthy A. Introduction to English
Morphology: words and their structure.
–
Edinburgh
university press, 2017.
Ballard H. L. The Broken Beef Cattle Industry: COOL,
COVID and CattleTrace //J. Food L. & Pol'y.
–
2022.
–
Т.
18.
–
С. 61.
Hjalager, A.-M. (1996). "Agricultural Diversification into
Tourism: Evidence of a European Community
Development Programme." Tourism Management,
17(2), 103-111.
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2017). English as a Lingua
Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford University Press.
