Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
75
4.
JOHNSON, J.R. and SCHERY, T. K., 1976, The use of grammatical morphemes by children
with communication dis-orders. In D. Morehead and A. Morehead (eds), Normal and
Deficient Child Language (Baltimore, MD: University Park Press), pp. 239–
258.
5.
Hasan, R. (2014) Text-based approach to efl teaching and learning in Indonesia. Functional
Linguistics, 1(1), 9. Volume 18| March, 2023 ISSN: 2795-7365 Eurasian Scientific Herald
COMPARATIVE AND TYPOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ANALYZING
POLYSEMY IN LINGUISTIC TERMS
Dalieva Madina Xabibullaevna
Uzbekistan state world languages university
Associate professor (PhD) department of teaching
English methodology №3
Abstract
This study explores the comparative typological approach to analyzing polysemy in linguistic
terms across English, Uzbek, and Russian languages. By grounding the research in comparative-
typological linguistics, the study emphasizes principles like comparability and terminological
adequacy. Various methods, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, are utilized to examine
the phenomena of polysemy within and across these languages. Through systematic comparison and
evaluation of terminological systems and individual terms, the research aims to uncover patterns of
similarities and differences in the lexical, semantic, and grammatical structures of polysemantic
terms. The findings highlight both unique and common features, contributing to a deeper
understanding of cross-linguistic polysemy and enhancing translation practices.
Key words:
polysemy, comparative typology, linguistic terms, terminology studies, lexical
analysis, semantic structure, cross-linguistic comparison, multilingual terminology, systematic
comparison
In the study of polysemy in linguistic terms across English, Uzbek, and Russian
languages, we base our research primarily on the principles of comparative-typological
linguistics. This approach incorporates principles such as systemicity, comparability,
terminological adequacy, sufficient depth of comparison, bi- (or multi-) laterality of
comparison, accounting for both positive and negative transfer of linguistic knowledge,
consideration of the degree of kinship and typological proximity of the languages
compared, statistical characteristics of the units compared, synchronicity, territorial
unlimitedness, and the accounting of functional styles and functional similarities
(Tsitkina, 1988). Alongside these, our research also leans on the general principles of
comparative terminology studies, focusing primarily on
“
cross-linguistic
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
76
terminological pairs and sub-languages in general: terms of the source language and
their corresponding translation language terms.
”
The object of comparative
terminology is the patterns of similarities and differences in the lexical, semantic, and
grammatical structures of terms and sub-languages, and the principles of their
translation.
As we can see from the above lists, the principles of comparative-typological
research of languages in general and the principles of comparative terminology have
overlapping areas. This overlap is justified since comparative terminology is an integral
component of comparative-typological linguistics.
We will examine these principles as applied to the comparative study of
polysemy in linguistic terms in English, Uzbek, and Russian languages. The principle
of systemicity involves comparing the terminological system as a whole and the
terminological units as elements of the system. As M.V. Faibushevsky (2021) writes,
comparative analysis of the lexical layers of languages can be conducted in two ways:
1.
Individual lexical units are compared, for example, linguistic terms, which may
share common sources of origin or are characterized by common semantics;
2.
Entire sub-systems of lexicon, such as terminological systems, are compared.
This method aims to identify
“
common trends in the formation of these lexical
groups and their intra-systemic characteristics (such as the presence of
synonyms, homonyms, etc.), as well as the place of the corresponding sub-
systems within the overall lexical system of the language
”
.
According to M.V. Faibushevsky, the object of comparative-typological
terminology includes both terminological systems as a whole and individual
terminological pairs of compared languages, which will be the focus of our study of
polysemic linguistic terms in English, Uzbek, and Russian languages.
The principle of comparability means an even degree of study of the
phenomenon of polysemy in the languages we compare. To achieve an equivalent level
of study of the phenomenon of polysemy, we will first analyze the polysemantic
linguistic terms in each language individually and then compare the obtained data. The
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
77
principle of terminological adequacy will be adhered to in that we will use terms that
carry a consistent semantic load relative to each language under consideration.
Overall, in this study, the principle of terminological adequacy of polysemy in
linguistic terms in a comparative-typological aspect is based on the following notions:
•
A linguistic term is a special unit expressed in a specific lexical sign
—
a word
that possesses lexical and conceptual meaning;
•
The meaning of a linguistic term in a dictionary is presented by a definition,
explaining its conceptual content;
•
The formation of polysemy in linguistic terms within a terminological system of
a particular language has certain features, which may either be similar to or
distinct from those in another language when compared.
The principle of sufficient depth of comparison will allow us to examine the
specific features of polysemantic linguistic terms in detail. The principle of
multilaterality of comparison of different polysemantic linguistic terms will prevent
the comparison of studied units through the prism of one language applied to others.
The principle of accounting for the positive and negative transfer of linguistic
knowledge in the study of the phenomenon of polysemy in English, Uzbek, and
Russian languages will help us operate with information about the semantic structure
of polysemantic linguistic terms of one language when studying the same structure of
terms in another language.
The principle of accounting for the degree of kinship-typological closeness of
languages is considered in our choice of research approaches and methods. Thus, the
three languages chosen for analysis originate from different systems: although English
and Russian languages belong to inflectional languages, English is analytical while
Russian is synthetic, and the Uzbek language belongs to agglutinative languages
(Satibaldiyev, 2023). This basis allows us to conduct our dissertation research within
the framework of a comparative-typological approach and to apply specific methods
of comparative terminology alongside general linguistic analysis methods.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
78
The principle of accounting for statistical characteristics of the units compared
involves, in our case, the statistical (frequency) properties of polysemantic linguistic
terms, which allow distinguishing the occasional manifestation of the phenomenon of
polysemy in terms from its usual expression, i.e., comparing the speech, dynamic
properties of polysemes from the language, constant properties.
In accordance with the principle of synchronicity, polysemantic linguistic terms
in the languages under study will be examined by us in a synchronous section, i.e.,
based on their functioning in contemporary English, Uzbek, and Russian languages.
The principle of territorial unlimitedness involves attracting to the analysis
territorially unrestricted, literary polysemantic linguistic terms, as according to U.K.
Yusupov,
“
the spatial placement of languages is of utmost importance for areal
linguistics and none for comparative, as the languages compared for theoretical and
linguodidactic purposes may
‘
neighbor,
’
‘
be located
’
in different parts of the world, or,
conversely, in the same territory
”
(Temirova, 2024). The principle of accounting for
functional styles means that we will involve polysemantic linguistic terms of the
studied languages in the same functional style
—
scientific.
The principle of functional similarity in the comparison of polysemantic
linguistic terms manifests in the identity, commonality, similarity, equivalence of
functional characteristics of these polysemes in English, Uzbek, and Russian
languages. The principle of complexity is determined by the fact that
“
establishing
relationships between systems must be multi-aspect, complex, conducted at the lexical,
semantic, and grammatical levels.
”
The polysemantic linguistic terms we study are
expressed mainly in nouns, adjectives, and verbs at the grammatical level, and they
form certain semantic fields at the lexico-semantic level, while having a polysemantic
semantic structure, which will be at the forefront of our analysis.
The semantic field, according to E.V. Demishkevich, represents
“
a set of
linguistic units united by common content and reflecting the conceptual, subject, or
functional similarity of the phenomena they denote
”
(Demiskevich, 2015). E.V.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
79
Demishkevich, following I.M. Kobozeva, notes the following characteristic features of
a semantic field:
1.
The presence of correlational relationships between the values of the units
included in it;
2.
The systemic nature of these correlations;
3.
The interdependence of lexemes;
4.
The relatively autonomous character of the field;
5.
The permanence of denoting semantic values;
6.
The interconnectedness of semantic fields within the lexical system (Kobozeva,
2007).
As we can see, the very nature of the semantic field suggests a complex approach
to its study.
In accordance with the principle of comparative systemicity, our current research
work will present the characteristics of the phenomenon of polysemy in linguistic terms
as a system of common and specific features of polysemantic terms in English, Uzbek,
and Russian languages. In accordance with the principle of classification, the common
and specific features of polysemantic terms in the languages under consideration will
be analyzed by us for the purpose of their classification.
The principle of oppositions takes place when
“
ystematic research of similarities
and differences should reveal such pairs of theoretical-systematic differences as
symmetry
–
asymmetry, orderliness
–
disorderliness, allomorphism
–
isomorphism,
etc. Based on this principle, we will identify symmetrical and asymmetrical features of
polysemantic linguistic terms, the sequence or chaos of the manifestation of polysemy
in terms, isomorphic and allomorphic properties of polysemantic terms in the different-
system languages we compare.
The principle of parameterization will be reflected in the analysis of
polysemantic linguistic terms of the languages under study by highlighting the
parameters of their comparison.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
80
The principle of textuality, according to F.A. Tsitkina (1988), provides that
“
the
material of the research must be collected from the sphere of functioning of the
languages, rather than from the sphere of fixation (dictionaries, etc.). Since
comparative terminology involves certain generalizations, establishing translation
norms, it studies regularly recurring phenomena related to the systems of studied sub-
languages or being part of these systems.
”
Regarding our research, the principle of
textuality conditions the consideration of the functional-semantic features of
polysemantic linguistic terms based on the material of linguistic literature, which is the
main sphere of manifestation of the phenomenon of polysemy in linguistic terms in
English, Uzbek, and Russian languages. While agreeing with the necessity of studying
the phenomenon of polysemy in dynamics and context, nevertheless, in this study, we
will also rely on lexicographical material, which, according to S.V. Grinev, is also a
text.
The principle of completeness in our study means that all general linguistic as
well as narrow-specialized (narrow-profile) polysemantic terms will be involved in the
comparative analysis, regardless of their location in the structural hierarchy of the
linguistic terminological system in the languages studied.
The principle of combining qualitative and quantitative techniques in the
comparison of polysemantic linguistic terms in English, Uzbek, and Russian languages
involves conducting a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the phenomenon of
polysemy in linguistic terms, i.e., identifying and analyzing both the qualitative and
quantitative properties of the studied phenomenon.
The taxonomic method in the study of polysemantic linguistic terms is aimed at
constructing a generalized scheme of polysemantic terms in the compared languages,
which is possible when they are differentiated into thematic groups. This method
facilitates the disclosure of lexico-semantic connections of polysemantic linguistic
terms, based on the classification features of referents denoted by these terms.
Semantic methods in the study of polysemantic linguistic terms will allow
describing the semantic structure of a polysemantic term, identifying the main semes
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
81
and sememes of the polysemant, since semantic methods are aimed at
“
decomposing
the value of a special or lexical unit into components,
”
which linguists denote as
“
sema,
semantic component, semantic multiplier, differential semantic feature, semantic
parameter, semantic marker, semantic classifier, lexical function, elementary value,
conceptual feature, etc.
”
A variety of component analysis is the method of semantic multipliers. The basis
of this method is the consideration of the logical-conceptual field of the term reflected
in the semantic structure as a set of several atomic concepts, which are in different
semantic relationships with each other.
Given the primary role of the definition as the most characteristic feature of
terminologicity of lexemes, it is necessary to attach special significance in the study of
linguistic terms-polysemants to definitional analysis. Under the definition is
understood
“
the explanation of the conceptual content of the term, fixing in a given
thematic area the results of one or another analysis of the defined concept and revealing
its place among other closest concepts for it.
”
The methodological method involves studying the component composition of
terminological definitions recorded in dictionaries and representing a layer of
interconnected concepts, the totality of which forms a definition. At the same time, the
algorithm for comparing definitions of different languages allows finding exact
equivalents of terms, synonyms, revealing semantic relationships between the
meanings of one term, determining the types of polysemy within one language, terms,
and their meanings of compared languages. Thus, the main principle of researching
linguistic terms in a comparative-typological aspect is the representation of a
special/non-special value as a set of features of concepts inherent in the linguistic
terminological system of the studied languages.
In this study, the method of definitional analysis and the method of semantic
multipliers are used, allowing representing the sememes of a linguistic term as
components of its value, which denote certain concepts of linguistics, as well as
revealing the semantic relationships between these concepts.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
82
References
1.
Герцик, И.П. (2011). Сопоставительное исследование в терминоведении и
профессиональное развитие специалиста.
Инновации в науке
, (5-2), 36.
2.
Демишкевич, Е.В. (2015). Тематические группы английских терминов железнодорожного
транспорта.
Омский научный вестник
, (1), 59.
3.
Кобозева, И.М. (2007). Лингвистическая семантика. Москва: КомКнига.
4.
Циткина, Ф.А. (1988). Терминология и перевод: К основам сопоставительного
терминоведения. Львов: Вища школа.
5.
Файбушевский, М.В. (2021). Моделирование терминосистемы биржевого дела: Дисс.
канд. филол. наук. Санкт
-
Петербург.
6.
Юсупов, У.К. (2007). Теоретические основы сопоставительной лингвистики. Ташкент:
Фан.
7.
Satibaldiyev, E. (2023). BILINGUAL PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: UNRAVELING
CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE. American Journal of Pedagogical and Educational
Research, 17, 142-144.
8.
Temirova N. A. (2023). CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AS A TYPE OF ORAL
TRANSLATION. Academia Science Repository, 4(6), 197
–
204.
9.
Рахмонов, А. Б. (2022, February). КРЕАТИВНАЯ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЯ КАК ОДНА ИЗ
КЛЮЧЕВЫХ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЙ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛЯ.
In
The 7 th International scientific and
practical conference “Science, innovations and education: problems and prospects”(February
9-11, 2022) CPN Publishing Group, Tokyo, Japan. 2022. 842 p.
(p. 469).
10.
Сатибалдиев, Э. К. (2022). ЯЗЫКОВОЕ КОНТАКТИРОВАНИЕ: БИЛИНГВИЗМ,
ПОЛИЛИНГВИЗМ,
ИНТЕРФЕРЕНЦИЯ.
In
ИНОСТРАННЫЙ
ЯЗЫК
В
ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЙ СФЕРЕ: ПЕДАГОГИКА, ЛИНГВИСТИКА, МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНАЯ
КОММУНИКАЦИЯ
(pp. 144-149).
11.
Темирова
,
Н
., &
Далиева
,
М
. (2024). Neologisms as a linguistic phenomenon and their
interpretation in modern linguistics.
Актуальные вопросы языковой подготовки в
глобализирующемся мире, 1(1), 177
-181.
IDENTIFYING CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING POLYSEMY IN
LINGUISTIC TERMS
Dalieva Madina Xabibullaevna
Uzbekistan state world languages university
Associate professor (PhD) department of teaching
English methodology №3
Abstract
This study explores the complex semantic phenomenon of polysemy in linguistic terms,
focusing on the differentiation between polysemy and related phenomena such as synonymy,
homonymy, polyaspectuality, and multifunctionality. Employing criteria outlined by scholars like
Apresean and Kuzmenko, the research categorizes the various forms of polysemy
–
chain, radial, and
mixed
–
and examines how these forms are influenced by cultural and contextual shifts within
language use. By analyzing the semantic relationships between a term
’
s primary and secondary
