388
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
DESCRIPTION OF AGRICULTURAL TERMS ACCORDING TO
LEXICAL-SEMANTIC RELATIONS
Boriyev Jamshid Khudoyberdiyevich
Teacher of the Department of Uzbek Language and Literature, Termez State University.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15384313
Abstract. This article analyzes the lexical-semantic properties of terms used in the field of
agriculture. The manifestation of terms in relations such as synonymy, antonymy, polysemy is
studied linguistically. Also, their branching and semantic interdependence are methodologically
studied.
Keywords: agricultural terms, lexical-semantic relations, synonymy, antonymy,
terminology, semantic analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is one of the most important areas in human life, and there are hundreds and
thousands of terms in this area. These terms represent not only technical processes, but also
scientific, economic, legal and environmental aspects. In linguistics, field terms are studied
through lexical-semantic relations. It is through these relationships that terms are systematized,
their aspects such as synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, polysemy, hyperonymy-hyponymy are
revealed. The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze the lexical-semantic relationships
of agricultural terms.
METHOD
The following methods were used in this study:
• Descriptive (descriptive) method - the lexical and contextual meanings of terms were
analyzed;
• Lexical-semantic analysis - synonymy, antonymy, hyperonymy and other semantic
relationships between terms were shown;
• Structural analysis - word-forming models and components of terms were studied;
• Statistical method - the frequency of use of terms, the number of synonyms, the level of
grouping were determined.
Scientific articles on agriculture, textbooks, the "Encyclopedia of Agriculture" and the
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language were used as research sources.
RESULTS
1. Synonymic relations
Synonymy is widespread in agricultural terminology. For example:
• productivity - fertility
• sowing - sowing
• plant protection - agrochemical
Such synonyms usually differ in stylistic color: one is official-technical, the other is
closer to the vernacular.
2. Antonymic relations
Although antonymic relations are less common in this area, they do occur in some cases:
• drought - moisture
• growth - decline
• fertile - low-yielding
These relations are more often found in texts on agrometeorology and crop forecasts.
389
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
3. Cases of polysemy
Some terms have multiple meanings:
• zor: 1) fertile land; 2) as excellent, strong
• field: 1) cultivated area; 2) as a field of activity
• niche: 1) plant branch; 2) in the meaning of a sign
These cases are determined more in context, and sometimes the terms are
indistinguishable from ordinary words.
4. Hyperonymy and hyponymy
In many cases, general and specific terms have a hyperonym-hyponym relationship:
• crop (hyperonym): wheat, barley, corn (hyponyms)
• livestock: cattle breeding, sheep breeding, poultry farming
• fertilizer: mineral, organic, biological
Such relationships determine the hierarchy in the terminological system.
DISCUSSION
Agricultural terms often form a comprehensive and complex lexical-semantic system.
Their combination into synonymous groups ensures the clarity and fluency of technical
texts. Also, hyperonym-hyponym relationships facilitate the systematization of terms.
However, these terms are sometimes called differently in different sources or differ in
meaning. For example, the terms “plowing” and “ploughing” are sometimes used as synonyms,
and sometimes as specialized processes. This indicates the lack of normative dictionaries or the
absence of a single list of terms.
Another important issue is homonymy between terms. In cases where words such as
“difficult” are difficult to distinguish between common language and technical language, context
should be used. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly characterize each term linguistically and
contextually.
CONCLUSION
The lexical-semantic relationships of agricultural terms ensure their systematicity, clarity
and accuracy. Relationships such as synonym, antonym, hyperonym, polysemy expand the
functional capabilities of terms in speech. For the stable and consistent development of
terminology, it is necessary to standardize them and study them based on the achievements of
modern linguistics.
REFERENCES
1.
Explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language. Volumes 1-5. – T.: FAN, 2006.
2.
Agricultural Encyclopedia. – T.: Sharq, 2010.
3.
A. Jo'rayev. Fundamentals of Terminology. – T.: National University of Uzbekistan, 2015.
4.
Sh. Safarov. Lexicology. – T.: Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2012.
5.
R. Abdullayev. Linguistic Features of Field Terminology. – Samarkand, 2020.
6.
Jamshid, B. R. (2022). YOZUVCHI ERKIN AZAMNING OGZAKI NUTQQA XOS
LEKSIK
VA
GRAMMATIK
VOSITALARDAN
USLUBIY
FOYDALANISH
MAHORATI. Евразийский журнал академических исследований, 2, 169-174.
7.
Jamshid, B. (2021). EXPRESSION OF DESCRIPTIVE ORAL UNITS IN THE WORKS
OF ERKIN AZAM. In Archive of Conferences (pp. 80-83).
8.
Farogat, N., & Jamshid, B. (2021). THE TRAGEDY OF FREEDOM. In Archive of
Conferences (Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 172-174).
390
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
9.
Бўриев, Ж. MAXTUMQULI MISRALARIDA GO ‘ZALLIK TUSHUNCHASI. NRJ, 1,
377-379.
10.
Jamshid, B. R. (2024). BIR VA KO‘P MA’NOLI QISHLOQ XO’JALIGI TERMINLAR
TAVSIFI.
