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
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
83
meanings, the study establishes criteria crucial for understanding the functionality and evolution of
language. These insights reveal the structured and nuanced ways that meanings are interconnected
within and across languages, contributing to a deeper understanding of linguistic complexity.
Key words:
polysemy, linguistic terminology, semantic relationships, language evolution,
cultural influence, lexical meaning
In the study of linguistic terminology, researchers employ several criteria to
distinguish between instances of polysemy, where a single term may have multiple
meanings. This complexity in semantics has led scholars like Apresean and Kuzmenko
to outline specific characteristics and relationships between these meanings to better
categorize and understand them (Apresean & Kuzmenko, 1980).
Polysemy, the occurrence of multiple meanings for a single linguistic term, can
manifest in diverse forms, specifically chain, radial, or mixed. These variations arise
depending on how derivative meanings accumulate over time, often influenced by
cultural and contextual shifts within language use. For example, a chain polysemy
develops when meanings extend linearly from a core idea, while radial polysemy
branches out from a central meaning in various, less directly connected directions.
Mixed polysemy incorporates elements of both forms, creating a complex web of
meanings that can intersect in various ways.
To effectively distinguish polysemy from related linguistic phenomena such as
synonymy, homonymy, polyaspectuality, and multifunctionality, researchers have
pinpointed several key categorical features specific to polysemantic linguistic terms.
These include the presence of multiple distinct meanings that are semantically linked,
the existence of a semantic invariant across these meanings, and the discrete
application of these meanings based on specific linguistic and contextual criteria.
Additionally, the meanings of a polysemantic term are often confined within a
particular semantic field, further defining their use and understanding in
communicative contexts.
These criteria not only aid in differentiating polysemy from other semantic
complexities but also provide a framework for analyzing the evolution and
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
84
functionality of language, offering insights into how meanings are structured and
understood across different languages and cultural backgrounds:
1.
Multiplicity of Meanings:
The presence of two or more meanings for a single
term.
2.
Semantic and Associative Connections:
These links exist between the
concepts designated by the term, indicating a deeper semantic structure.
3.
Semantic Invariant:
A consistent semantic element across the polysemantic
structure of a term.
4.
Discreteness of Meanings:
Each meaning differentiated by the scientific and
linguistic context.
5.
Contextual Relativity:
The meaning of a term is linked to a specific denotatum
only within a particular scientific and linguistic context.
6.
Semantic Field Limitation:
All meanings of a term are confined to a single
semantic field.
Criteria for Determining Types of Polysemy
To pinpoint the specific type of polysemy a term exhibits, researchers
meticulously analyze the semantic relationships between a term
’
s primary concept
(hypernym) and its secondary meanings. This analytical process involves
understanding how meanings branch out from the core concept and establish their
distinctness or overlap. Such scrutiny is crucial for identifying whether the connections
among meanings form a linear, radial, or mixed pattern, each reflecting a different type
of semantic development.
In exploring these relationships, scholars assess the degree of semantic
proximity or distance, the nature of the conceptual links, and the presence of semantic
shifts that might indicate evolutionary changes in language use. For instance, in radial
polysemy, the meanings radiate from a central sense and may be related metaphorically
or metonymically, reflecting diverse yet inherently connected uses of the term.
Moreover, this investigation also considers the functional aspect of the terms within
different linguistic contexts, examining how each meaning operates in its particular
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
85
usage environment. By analyzing these factors, researchers can classify polysemy into
more precise categories, providing insights into the fluid dynamics of language and
enhancing our understanding of how semantic fields are structured and modified over
time. This analysis leads to the identification of several key criteria:
1.
Semantic Correlation:
The degree to which a polysemantic term relates to two
or more concepts.
2.
Regularity/Irregularity:
Some polysemies are regular, as discussed by scholars
like Leech and others (Leech, 2003), while others are not, affecting how they are
understood and used.
3.
Secondary Semantic Relations:
These relationships determine how secondary
meanings relate to the primary concept, a method crucial for understanding
hypernymy and hyponymy in polysemy.
4.
Congruence/Incongruence:
The comparison of a term
’
s meanings with
common usage based on their form and function helps determine if a term
functions similarly across different sciences or domains.
5.
Dictionary Interpretations:
Variations in how a term is defined or equated
across languages can reveal hidden polysemies that are specific to linguistic or
interlinguistic contexts.
This research highlights the intricate nature of polysemy within linguistic
terminology and establishes a set of criteria for distinguishing polysemy from similar
semantic phenomena. By categorizing the forms of polysemy and examining the
semantic links between meanings, it provides a robust framework for understanding
how meanings evolve and interact within a semantic field. The findings underscore the
importance of contextual and cultural factors in shaping the semantic structures of
languages, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of language use and evolution.
The established criteria not only aid in linguistic analysis but also enhance our
comprehension of how languages adapt and function across various communicative
contexts.
References
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
86
1.
Кузьменко Н.А. Выделение омонимов из семантической структуры английского
многозначного слова (опыт разработки методики): Дисс. ... канд. филол. наук. –
М.:
Изд
-
во Моск. Гос. пед. ин
-
та, 1980. –
С. 85.
2.
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).
3.
Сатибалдиев, Э. К. (2022). ЯЗЫКОВОЕ КОНТАКТИРОВАНИЕ: БИЛИНГВИЗМ,
ПОЛИЛИНГВИЗМ,
ИНТЕРФЕРЕНЦИЯ.
In
ИНОСТРАННЫЙ
ЯЗЫК
В
ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЙ
СФЕРЕ:
ПЕДАГОГИКА,
ЛИНГВИСТИКА,
МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНАЯ КОММУНИКАЦИЯ
(pp. 144-149).
4.
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.
5.
Leech, G. N. (2003).
Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other
paradigms
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Murphy, M. L. (2010).
Lexical meaning
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
ЛЕКСИКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ ЯЗЫКА МОЛОДЕЖНОЙ
СУБКУЛЬТУРЫ: ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИХ ИННОВАЦИЙ И
ИХ ВЛИЯНИЕ НА ЯЗЫКОВУЮ НОРМУ
Далиева Мадина Хабибуллаевна
заведующая кафедрой
Методики преподавания английского языка №3
Узбекского государственного университета мировых языков,
д.ф.ф.н., доцент
Валиева Наргизахон Замир кизи,
студент магистратуры
Узбекского государственного университета мировых языков
Аннотация
Данное исследование направлено на анализ лексических инноваций в языке
молодежной субкультуры и их влияния на языковую норму. В работе рассматривается
концепция молодежной субкультуры и ее роль в формировании лексических изменений. Особое
внимание уделяется процессам изменения языковой нормы под воздействием субкультурных
явлений. Методология исследования включает анализ лексических единиц, характерных для
молодежного языка, и изучение способов их распространения и утверждения в языке. На
основе проведенного анализа выделяются ключевые тенденции в использовании лексических
