The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
41
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
41-52
10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue01-06
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
24 October 2024
ACCEPTED
22 December 2024
PUBLISHED
23 January 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue01 2025
CITATION
Shokhida Abdullaeva. (2025). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships
in the translation of financial-economic texts. The American Journal of
Social Science and Education Innovations, 7(01), 41
–
52.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue01-06
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships
in the translation of
financial-economic texts
Shokhida Abdullaeva
Independent Researcher (DSc), Associate Professor, Doctor of Philosophy
in Philological Sciences (PhD), Uzbekistan State World Languages
University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This study investigates paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships in the translation of financial-
economic texts between English and Uzbek languages.
The research examines how linguistic relationships
manifest in financial terminology and explores various
types of synonymic relationships that emerge during
translation. The methodology employs a comparative
linguistic analysis approach, utilizing F. de Saussure’s
theoretical framework on linguistic relationships to
analyze semantic and structural relationships between
language units in financial contexts. The study examines
authentic financial texts and terminology from both
languages to identify paradigmatic relationships and
semantic equivalences.
The results demonstrate that while absolute synonyms
are generally rare in language, they occur more
frequently in technical financial fields, though each term
typically carries subtle contextual or stylistic
differences. The analysis reveals that financial terms in
both English and Uzbek form complex systems of
interconnected units where words function as part of a
broader nominative system. The study identifies and
analyzes various types of synonyms
–
absolute,
contextual, stylistic, and emotional
–
showing how they
operate within specific frameworks to enable precise
expression of financial concepts while maintaining
semantic accuracy across languages.
The research concludes that paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships play a crucial role in
understanding and translating financial terminology
between English and Uzbek languages. The systematic
nature of these linguistic relationships proves essential
for accurate translation and effective communication of
financial concepts while maintaining appropriate
stylistic and emotional connotations in various
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
42
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
professional contexts. This understanding contributes
to more precise and contextually appropriate
translations of financial-economic texts between the
two languages.
Keywords:
Paradigmatic relationships, syntagmatic
relationships, financial-economic translation, linguistic
synonymy, contextual synonyms, stylistic synonyms,
emotional synonyms, language substitutability,
financial terminology, cross-linguistic equivalence.
Introduction:
The richness and complexity of a
language’s vocabulary is determined through the
relationships between language units in its dynamics.
These relationships perform a nominative function
according to morphological, phonological, and word-
formation patterns, revealing the paradigmatic and
syntagmatic characteristics of lexical units.
F. de Saussure expresses these relationships as follows:
“On one hand, words combine with each other in
speech, entering into relationships based on the linear
nature of language. This excludes the possibility of
pronouncing two elements simultaneously. These
elements are arranged consecutively in the flow of
speech. Combinations with such continuity can be
called syntagmas. Thus, a syntagma consists of two or
more sequential units (for example, re-reading; in front
of everyone; human life; human death; if the weather
is good, we will take a walk, and so on)”. …
“On the other hand, outside the speech process, words
that share common aspects combine in memory to
fo
rm groups. For example, the word ‘teaching’ forms a
sequential series with many other words in
consciousness (teach, learn, break, education,
knowledge, and others) because they are similar to
each other in certain features. These relationships are
not based on continuity. We call these relationships
associative relationships” (de Saussure, 1959).
Summarizing the discussion, F. de Saussure presents
the following thoughts:
“The syntagmatic relationship is always present (in
praesentia): it relies on two or more elements that
equally exist in an actual sequence. In contrast, the
associative relationship unites elements that are
absent (in absentia) into a potential, mnemonic series”
(de Saussure, 1916).
F. de Saussure, in explaining the mechanism of
language, emphasizes that various syntagmas exist in
linguistic memory, differing in type and length. The
functioning of language implies the interaction of
these syntagmas at different scales. Language users’
choice of word combinations is governed by certain
principles, including syntagmatic collocative constraints,
semantic logical coherence, and linear relationships of
syntactic-semantic structures.
It should be noted that financial and economic concepts
in English and Uzbek languages, like in other languages,
are not simply a collection of individual words, but
rather a system composed of interconnected and
complementary units, where no word can exist in
speech in isolation, separated from the general
nominative system. Words can be classified into various
groups based on certain characteristics, for example:
•
words with common meanings;
•
words with similar stylistic features;
•
words with common word formation patterns;
•
words connected by their origin, functional
features in speech;
•
words belonging to active or passive lexical
layers and so forth.
The listed systematic connections also encompass
entire word classes that are unified in their categorical
essence (for example, words expressing objects,
attributes, and actions). Such systematic relationships in
groups of words united by similar features are called
paradigmatic relationships (from Greek “paradeigma” –
sample, model).
Paradigmatic connections form the basis of the lexical
system of any language. Usually, it is divided into many
microsystems. The simplest of these are word pairs
connected by meaning opposition, that is, antonyms.
More complex microsystems consist of words grouped
based on similarity of meanings. These include
synonymic series, various thematic groups, and also
form a hierarchy of units within them, comparing their
types and common features.
Paradigmatic relationships expressed in special
concepts allow understanding the similarities and
differences between words and their position in the
meaning system. The analysis of paradigmatic
relationship representations requires correct usage of
financial and economic terms, their accurate translation
from one language to another, and precise expression in
various contexts.
Paradigmatics is one of the two aspects of systematic
language study, defined through the identification and
opposition of two types of relationships between
language elements or units - paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships. Paradigmatics is a branch of
linguistics that studies paradigmatic relationships
existing in language, their classification, spheres of
operation, and similar issues (Great Russian
Encyclopedia, n.d.; Baudouin de Courtenay, 2003).
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
43
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Paradigmatics is understood in a broader sense as a
language system itself
–
a collection of linguistic classes
of paradigms. It is contrasted with syntagmatics, as
syntagmatics is closer to the language process and text
concepts.
The earliest ideas about the existence of paradigmatic
and syntagmatic relationships in linguistics were
expressed in the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay
and N.V. Kruszewski. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay
distinguished between ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’
relationships
in
comparing
and
sequentially
substituting language units. N.V. Kruszewski discussed
associations based on proximity and similarity. He also
put forward the idea that these associations could
influence each other and determine language
development.
In this study, the syntagmatic influence hypothesis
analyzes syntactic and semantic constraints at the
combinational level between the head word and target
words. Researchers aimed to observe how test
participants’ evaluations are shaped by these
constraints. Paradigmatic influence manifests as a
tendency toward continuity between the syntactic and
semantic properties of head and target words.
According to this hypothesis, when asked to evaluate
the grammatical category of target words, relevant
rules and meanings in participants’ mental memory
become activated, creating a certain state of repetition
or correspondence.
The structural differences between parts of speech in
English and Uzbek languages significantly affect both
syntagmatic and paradigmatic influences. In English,
parts of speech and syntactic elements combine as
different aspects of a unified system, while such
correspondence does not exist in Uzbek. In Uzbek,
morphological markers are more prominent, and
semantic-pragmatic categories are relatively more
distinct, but syntactic positions are mainly governed by
semantic and syntactic constraints. In English, parts of
speech assign roles according to syntactic constraints.
Therefore, second language learners whose native
language is Chinese are expected to be under stronger
syntagmatic influence because the semantically-
constrained nature of their language significantly
affects their language usage ability.
METHODS
The research employed a comparative linguistic
analysis approach to examine paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships in financial-economic texts
between English and Uzbek languages. The primary
focus was on analyzing the semantic and structural
relationships between language units, particularly in
the context of financial terminology and economic
discourse.
The study utilized a contrastive analysis methodology to
examine various types of synonyms (absolute,
contextual, stylistic, and emotional) in both languages.
This involved systematic comparison of financial terms
and expressions to identify their paradigmatic
relationships and semantic equivalences across the two
languages. The analysis was conducted using authentic
financial texts and terminology from both languages to
ensure accuracy in understanding the semantic
relationships and usage contexts.
The research methodology also incorporated F. de
Saussure’s theoretical framework on linguistic
relationships, particularly his concepts of syntagmatic
relationships
(in
praesentia)
and
associative/paradigmatic relationships (in absentia).
This theoretical foundation was applied to analyze how
financial terms combine in sequential speech patterns
and how they form associative groups in the linguistic
memory of users in both English and Uzbek languages.
The study examined specific examples of financial-
economic
terminology
through
systematic
categorization and analysis of their semantic
relationships. This included investigating how terms
relate to each other within their respective language
systems and how these relationships transfer across
languages in translation. Particular attention was paid to
analyzing the contextual, stylistic, and emotional
aspects of synonymous relationships in financial
discourse.
The analysis also incorporated theoretical perspectives
from various linguistic scholars, including D.
A. Cruse’s
work on lexical semantics, J.Lyons’ theories on
contextual synonymy, and C.Fillmore’s frame semantics
approach. These theoretical frameworks were applied
to understand how financial terms operate within their
respective language systems and how their meanings
and relationships are maintained or altered in
translation between English and Uzbek.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The paradigm as a linguistic concept is connected with
the concept of system used in all sciences. In research,
some abstract systems may have a prototype, while
others may not. This can be interpreted using examples
of English and Uzbek financial texts. For instance:
‘Interest rate’ is a prototype of the Uzbek lexeme ‘foiz
stavkasi’, meaning it exists as a model. However,
abstract cat
egories like ‘moliya turlari’ (types of finance)
or ‘to‘lov turlari’ (types of payment) often do not have a
single concrete expression or prototype because they
represent system-specific combinations.
The associative relationship of language forms as
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
44
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
systems where linguistic units remind of one another.
These relationships form a system in the minds of
language users. For example, in Uzbek, the word ‘foiz’
(percent) may remind of financial terms like ‘daromad’
(income), ‘foyda’ (profit), ‘rentabellik’ (prof
itability)
because they all belong to one financial system. In
English, the word ‘interest’ reminds of words like
‘profit’, ‘revenue’, ‘gain’. This associative feature of
language works both ways. For example: ‘profit
margin’ on one hand reminds of words like ‘revenue’,
‘income’, and on the other hand reminds of an
opposing system like ‘cost’, ‘expenditure’. In Uzbek,
‘daromad’ (income) can remind of ‘foyda’ (profit), ‘ish
haqi’ (salary) on one side, and ‘xarajat’ (expense),
‘zarar’ (loss) on the other side
. The commonalities and
differences of associative relationships have units that
remind of each other and share similar or common
features. For example, the English words ‘interest’ and
‘profit’ belong to the ‘financial income’ category and
unite into one system in terms of pure meaning.
Whereas the Uzbek words ‘foyda’ (profit) and
‘daromad’ (income) also express ‘pure financial result’,
but they have different characteristics in their own
system. From this point of view, language units unite in
the system, allowing them to form internal
microsystems. Thus, one unit in the system reminds of
another, creating connections between meanings.
To form our initial understanding of linguistic
paradigm, we turn to a real-world example. We try
several different combinations to unlock a computer.
Finally, when the correct combination is entered, the
computer unlocks. Password combinations are
alternative choices like elements in a paradigm. Or
when choosing appropriate clothing for an event, we
try different options (suit, dress, jeans). The clothing
that matches the nature of the event is the correctly
chosen element within that paradigm.
A linguistic paradigm is a system of linguistic units that
have common features, belong to the same linguistic
level, and form paradigmatic relationships with each
other. The paradigm incorporates both similar and
opposing features within itself, providing options for
choice. Units within the paradigm form basic and
paradigmatic relationships with each other, and these
relationships
express
associativity,
contextual
compatibility, and substitutability in the language
system.
According to F. de Saussure, paradigmatic relationships
are the most fundamental linguistic connections for
language units because they determine the
possibilities of choice within the internal structure of
language. These relationships are determined by how
units in the paradigm complement and differentiate
from each other in terms of content, structure, and
function (de Saussure, 1959):
A.
When one unit within a paradigm is mentioned,
other elements belonging to that paradigm usually
come to mind. For example, when one case form is
mentioned, other forms within that case system are
activated in memory. Similarly, when one synonym is
mentioned, it connects to other words in the
synonymous series. This process is a manifestation of
paradigmatic relationships in language. For instance,
Paradigmatic relationship. When the word ‘revenue’ is
mentioned, other members of its system (‘profit’,
‘income’) are activated in consci
ousness. Similarly, the
word ‘daromad’ (income) also reminds one of ‘foyda’
(profit) and ‘xarajat’ (expense). These units unite into a
system through mutual paradigmatic connections.
English ‘revenue’ and Uzbek ‘daromad’ play the same
paradigmatic
role.
Their
semantic
paradigm
encompasses internal economic categories, for
example:
‘Revenue’ <
-
> ‘Profit’ <
-
> ‘Cost’
‘Daromad’ <
-
> ‘Foyda’ <
-
> ‘Xarajat’.
In English, there is a semantic nuance between the
terms ‘revenue’, ‘income’, and ‘profit’ (that is, ‘revenue’
means total income, while ‘profit’ means earnings after
expenses). If the word ‘profit’ (foyda) is used, words like
‘revenue’ (daromad), ‘cost’ (xarajat), and ‘margin’
(foyda marjasi) come to mind as semantically related
elements. For instance, “The company’s profit has
increased significantly this quarter”.
In this context, when the word ‘profit’ is used, a
paradigmatic connection emerges with financial units
like ‘revenue’ (source of profit) and ‘cost’ (expenses).
B.
For a specific speech situation, one unit is
selected from units that are in paradigmatic relationship
with each other, that is, from paradigm members. Let us
justify this with an example from the context of credit
terms:
A text discussing credit terms.
Paradigm: ‘Loan’, ‘Credit’, ‘Debt’, ‘Mortgage’.
Selection: ‘Loan’ (qarz) is used because it expresses the
general concept.
English text: “The bank offers loans with a fixed interest
rate for small businesses”.
In this sentence, ‘Loan’ was chosen because the general
concept of borrowing is important here, while
‘Mortgage’ is only used for real estate and is not
appropriate for the context.
We can see similar examples in the following table (See
Table 1).
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
45
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Table 1. Language paradigms and selection table
Context
Paradigm
Selection
Text
Note
Financial
report
Income, Earnings,
Profit, Net income
Net income
“The company
reported a 15%
increase in net
income for the
fiscal year”.
‘Net income’ represents the
pure income remaining after
expenses and taxes are
deducted.
Credit
terms
Loan, Credit, Debt,
mortgage
Loan
“The bank offers
loans with a fixed
interest rate for
small businesses”.
‘Loan’ expresses the general
concept of borrowing, while
‘Mortgage’ only relates to real
estate, therefore it is not
appropriate.
Market
analysis
Market share,
Revenue, Sales,
Growth
Market
share
“The company’s
market share grew
by 5% over the
last quarter”.
‘Market share’ fits the context
where market share is being
analyzed, other terms cannot
express such information.
Employee
wages
Salary, Wages,
Compensation,
Income
Salary
“The average
salary of the
employees has
increased by 10%
this year”.
‘Salary’ provides information
about fixed pay, while
‘Wages’ is related to hourly
pay, which is not appropriate
in this context.
According to R.E. Asher, syntagmatic relationships
express the semantic connection between words that
co-occur within a text or sentence (Asher, 1994).
B.Hjørland (2014), emphasizing the importance of
paradigmatic relationships, defines them as follows:
“Paradigmatics demonstrates not the interconnections
within combinations, but rather the possibility of
substitution
between
language
units.
These
relationships
are
mainly
based
on
lexical,
morphological, and semantic similarities in language.
Paradigmatic relationships provide the possibility of
substituting words belonging to the same category
with
one another” (Hjørland, 2015).
Thesauri and ontologies are often based on
paradigmatic relationships. Although many studies
have focused on relationships between individual
words, Ch.S. Khoo and J.Ch. Na emphasized that
semantic connections also encompass relationships
between concepts (Khoo & Na, 2006).
Generally, syntagmatic relationships are considered to
be based on positioning, while paradigmatic
relationships are based on substitution possibilities.
However, the question of whether two words or
concepts can simultaneously have both paradigmatic
and syntagmatic relationships remains a debatable
issue in scientific circles.
The question of whether two words or concepts can
simultaneously
have
both
paradigmatic
and
syntagmatic relationships is one of the ongoing
interesting scientific debates in modern linguistics and
semantics. This question is aimed at deeper
understanding of connections between words and
concepts, and has significant practical and theoretical
importance. Paradigmatic relationships typically refer to
concepts that exist within the same category. For
example, ‘aktivlar’ (assets) and ‘majburiyatlar’
(liabilities) belong to the financial balance category and
are viewed as complementary concepts, as they can be
substituted or compared within the framework of
financial indicators.
Syntagmatic relationships express the positioning of
words relative to each other and their joint use within a
text or sentence. For example, when phrases like
‘assets’ and ‘bilan bog‘liq risklar’ (associated risks)
are
used in one sentence, they together serve to explain the
financial situation and demonstrate a syntagmatic
relationship. In this way, the concepts of ‘assets’ and
‘liabilities’ can simultaneously have both paradigmatic
and syntagmatic relationships, which shows their
multifaceted nature in financial analysis and reporting.
However, examining the question of whether words can
simultaneously have paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relationships presents difficulties. This is because in this
case, concepts must be interconnected (syntagmatic)
while also having the possibility of substitution within
the same semantic category. This issue is based on the
following scientific evidence:
M.W. Evens and others emphasize that paradigmatic
relationships can be expressed syntagmatically (Evens
et al., 1980). This is especially important in lexical
analysis when determining the interrelationships
between words.
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
46
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
S.Jones
observed
in
their
research
that
paradigmatically connected adjectives are often used
together within the same sentence with connecting
devices (Jones, 2002). This can serve as an example of
the simultaneous existence of both types of
relationships.
These approaches serve as a basis for identifying the
interconnections between language units. These views
are especially important in lexical analysis, as
paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships play a
significant role in identifying semantic and structural
connections between words and phrases. These
approaches can also be applied in the analysis of
financial texts, as such texts express complex logical
and semantic relationships. Below are examples of
sentences that align with these scholars’ views and
their analyses:
In English: “The company’s revenue increased
significantly, yet its operational costs also rose”
(syntagmatic
connection:
determined
through
contrasting ideas in one sentence).
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniya daromadi oshdi,
biroq xarajatlar
ham keskin ko‘paydi” (syntagmatic
connection: expresses contrasting meaning within one
sentence).
In English: “Investors prefer stable returns; hence, low
-
risk bonds are often more attractive” (paradigmatic
connection: connects through different financial
instruments via investors’ choices).
Translation into Uzbek: “Investorlar barqaror
daromadlarni ma’qul ko‘radi, shu sababli xavfi past
bo‘lgan
obligatsiyalar
afzalroq”
(paradigmatic
connection: shown through investors’ preferences).
In English: “During e
conomic downturns, companies
either cut costs or restructure their operations” (Two
types of connection: choice (paradigmatic) and cause-
effect (syntagmatic) are expressed together).
Translation into Uzbek: “Iqtisodiy tanazzul davrida
kompaniyalar xarajatl
arni qisqartirish yoki o‘z
faoliyatini qayta tashkil etish yo‘llarini tanlaydi” (Two
types of connection: choice (paradigmatic) and cause-
effect (syntagmatic)).
According to the example analysis, paradigmatic
connection is identified through the relationship
between elements that perform the same functional
role. For example, in the case of investors, they
evaluate multiple choices (high-risk or low-risk bonds)
simultaneously. This aligns with M.W. Evens’ view, as
paradigmatic relationships can be expressed within the
same sentence.
Syntagmatic connection shows the logical sequence in
words or sentences. For example, the joint analysis of
income and expenses (expressing contrasting meanings
in one sentence) corresponds to S.Jones’ observations.
According to dual relationships, financial texts,
especially those concerning economic decisions,
demonstrate both types of connections simultaneously.
Such cases illuminate contrasting relationships (like
cause-effect)
through
syntactic
structure
and
paradigmatic relationships (choice possibilities). These
sentences confirm the approaches of M.W. Evens and
S.Jones, as they demonstrate the interconnection of
paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships in real
practice.
According to practical observations, research conducted
by G.Bel Enguix, R.Rapp, and M.Zock showed that when
creating graphs based on syntagmatic relationships,
some words were found to be paradigmatically
connected as well (Bel Enguix et al., 2014). This
phenomenon confirms the mutual complexity of
linguis
tic phenomena. For example, ‘profit’ and
‘income’ can be paradigmatically substitutable since
both belong to the financial result category. At the same
time, phrases like ‘profit increase’ or ‘income increase’
express syntagmatic relationships in a sentence. In this
context, the concepts of ‘profit’ and ‘income’ can
simultaneously
have
both
paradigmatic
and
syntagmatic relationships. This situation is important in
understanding complex relationships between concepts
in financial texts and is effectively used in semantic
analysis and drawing economic conclusions. For
instance, in a financial report, the phrase ‘income
increase’ can be replaced with ‘profit increase’, but
when these concepts are used together, they express a
broader economic context, such as:
In English: “The increase in revenue often leads to
higher profits, but these terms should not be confused
as interchangeable in every context” (‘revenue’ and
‘profit’ can be paradigmatic substitutes, but are used in
syntagmatic relationships within a sentence).
Translation into Uzbek: “Daromadning oshishi ko‘pincha
foyda oshishini ta’minlaydi, lekin bu tushunchalarni har
doim tenglashtirib bo‘lmaydi” (‘daromad’ and ‘foyda’
are paradigmatically connected, but they form a
syntagmatic relationship in the sentence).
In English: “While revenue growth indicates market
expansion,
profit
growth
signifies
operational
efficiency” (here,‘revenue growth’ and ‘profit growth’
are paradigmatically related, but together they
demonstrate economic results).
Translation into
Uzbek: “Daromadning o‘sishi bozor
kengayishini bildirsa, foydaning o‘sishi operatsion
samaradorlikni ko‘rsatadi” (here, ‘daromad’ and ‘foyda’
are paradigmatically related, but express a broader
context within the economic text).
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
47
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
In English: “The company’s
profits grew by 15%, and
this was supported by a 10% increase in revenue”
(‘profits’ and ‘revenue’ are syntagmatically connected
to each other, but economic concepts can also be
substitutes in a paradigmatic context).
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyanin
g foydasi
15%ga o‘sdi, bunga daromadning 10%ga oshishi
yordam berdi” (the concepts of ‘daromad’ and ‘foyda’
are syntagmatically connected to each other, but give
different economic meanings in a paradigmatic sense).
Thus, paradigmatically, the concepts of
‘income’ and
‘profit’ belong to the financial result category and can
be substitutes. For example, in a financial report, the
word ‘profit’ can be used instead of ‘income’, but when
used together, they provide a more precise economic
picture.
According to syntagmatic connection, phrases like
‘income increase’ and ‘profit increase’ are positioned
sequentially in the sentence structure and have
complementary characteristics. This approach is
important
in
expressing
complex
economic
relationships and drawing precise conclusions.
The texts demonstrate the simultaneous existence of
paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships. For
example, ‘income’ and ‘profit’ are used together to
illuminate economic results in a broader context. This
aligns with the views of G.Bel Enguix and others and
confirms the complexity of linguistic analysis, clearly
showing
how
paradigmatic
and
syntagmatic
relationships are expressed in the context of economic
texts.
M.Sahlgren
emphasizes
that
paradigmatic
relationships are important in linguistics for identifying
concepts that do not occur together in one text but are
semantically connected (Sahlgren, 2006). This shows
that paradigmatic relationships, unlike syntagmatic
relationships, connect concepts based on logical and
semantic substitutability. This approach is used in
linguistics and cognitive analysis to reveal new layers
of meaning:
In English: “While revenue is linked to business
turnover, profit reflects the company’s financial
health” (‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ explain financial resu
lts
through paradigmatic connection even when they do
not appear together in one sentence).
Translation into Uzbek: “Daromad biznes hajmi bilan
bog‘liq bo‘lsa, foyda kompaniyaning moliyaviy holatini
aks
ettiradi”
(‘daromad’
and
‘foyda’
are
paradigmatically connected, but they carry separate
semantic loads in one sentence).
In English: “Investment in equities contrasts with
savings in bonds, though both serve as financial tools
for wealth accumulation” (‘equities’ and ‘bonds’ are
paradigmatically connected, as both are types of capital,
yet they are used with distinct meanings in a text).
Translation into Uzbek: “Aksiyalarga sarmoya xavfliroq
bo‘lishi mumkin, ammo obligatsiyalar orqali barqaror
daromadga
erishish
mumkin”
(‘aksiyalar’
and
‘obligatsiyalar’ are
paradigmatically connected, but are
used with contrasting meanings in one text).
In English: “Operational efficiency is the cornerstone of
profit maximization, distinct from revenue generation”
(‘Operational efficiency’ and ‘revenue’ have a
paradigmatic connection because they demonstrate the
concept of financial processes without being used
together).
Translation into Uzbek: “Operatsion samaradorlik foyda
oshirishning asosidir, bu esa daromad ishlab
chiqarishdan farq qiladi” (‘Operatsion samaradorlik’ and
‘daromad’ are paradigmatically connected, but have
semantically independent meanings).
From the examples, we can see that paradigmatic
relationships show semantic connections between
concepts that do not appear together in text. For
example,
‘income’ and ‘profit’ are often used in
different contexts, but they have complementary
characteristics in financial logic.
Paradigmatically connected concepts maintain their
logical relationships whether they appear together or
not. This aligns with M.Sah
lgren’s views on the
paradigmatic approach, as concepts can convey broader
meaning even without being used together in a text.
These examples further illustrate the importance of
paradigmatic relationships in linguistics and financial
analysis. This approach allows for more precise
identification of connections between complex financial
concepts.
Based on the analysis results, we can say that the
question of whether two concepts or words can
simultaneously have paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relationships is supported by theoretical and practical
evidence. This allows for deeper analysis of the semantic
structures of words and their usage within texts. Further
studying this issue through empirical research could
lead to significant scientific achievements, especially in
the fields of linguistics and semantics.
Synonymy represents semantic relationships between
words or phrases that have the same or similar
meanings. Synonymy is one of the main forms of
paradigmatic relationships and is important in
understanding the richness and expressive possibilities
of language. For example, the words ‘big’ and ‘huge’ are
synonyms and can be used interchangeably depending
on the context. However, the relationship between
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
48
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
synonyms often depends on their subtle differences in
meaning and contextual usage.
In his work ‘Lexical Semantics’, D.A. Cruse makes the
following observation about absolute synonyms: “True
absolute synonyms, that is, words that can completely
replace each other in all contexts without any
difference in meaning, frequency of use, or
connotation, are very rare in natural languages”
(Cruse, 1986: 270). This means that while absolute
synonyms may exist theoretically, their existence is
rarely observed in practical language. This is because
each word has its own unique semantic, stylistic, or
pragmatic differences.
Absolute synonyms are rare in linguistics because
words usually differ semantically or stylistically.
However, in technical fields, such as finance and
economics, terminological synonymy is found to occur
relatively more frequently. For example:
Revenue / Income
–
both mean ‘income’ (daromad):
In English: “The company’s annual revenue increased
by 10%”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning yillik
daromadi 10%ga oshdi”.
In English: “The firm’s income de
pends on its customer
base”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Firma daromadi uning
mijozlar bazasiga bog‘liq”.
Revenue is used in financial reports to show corporate
income. Income is used more broadly, including to
express personal financial earnings. These methods
show that absolute synonymy is often limited, for
instance, profit / earnings. Both mean ‘foyda’ (profit).
In English: “The profit margin has significantly grown
this quarter”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Ushbu chorakda foyda marjasi
sezilarli darajada osh
di”.
In English: “The company’s earnings report will be
published next week”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning foyda
hisobotlari keyingi hafta e’lon qilinadi”.
While ‘profit’ expresses specific financial profit,
‘earnings’ is broader, expressing prof
it before taxes or
other expenses.
Expenditure / Expense
–
both mean ‘xarajat’
(expense):
In English: “The annual expenditure on research has
doubled”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Tadqiqotga yillik xarajat ikki
baravar oshdi”.
In English: “Travel expenses mu
st be reimbursed by the
company”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Sayohat xarajatlari kompaniya
tomonidan qoplanishi kerak”.
Expenditure often refers to large-scale or long-term
expenses. Expense refers to daily or routine costs. It
should be noted that while D.A. Cruse acknowledges the
theoretical existence of absolute synonyms, he
emphasizes their rare occurrence in practice (Cruse,
1986). In our case, we disagree with the scholar’s view.
The examples above show that financial terms are often
used as synonyms in technical fields, but each word has
its own stylistic or contextual difference. The usage of
words depends on their semantic and pragmatic
characteristics. This reflects the complexity and richness
of language.
Contextual synonyms are an important concept in
linguistics, and their use primarily helps in
understanding the meaning of language units and
studying the dynamic possibilities of language.
Contextual synonyms are an important field of
linguistics, revealing the variable and adaptable nature
of language. This concept is a useful tool for translators,
writers, and linguists.
Contextual synonyms are words that can substitute for
each other in a particular context or situation but do not
convey exactly the same meaning in other contexts. As
noted in J.L
yons’ “Introduction to Theoretical
Linguistics” (1968), such synonyms are considered
synonymous only in context-dependent situations.
J.Lyons emphasizes the following about this:
“Contextual synonyms are mainly linguistically or
situationally dependent. Their degree of substitutability
varies according to changes in context” (Lyons, 1968:
453). J.Lyons’ views align with modern semantic
research. For example, when C.Fillmore studied context
and meaning systems, he examined the impact of
contextual synonyms on communicative effectiveness.
He states about this: “Words acquire their meaning only
within certain domains or contexts, and this sometimes
makes them synonymous, but such synonymy is
considered highly conditional” (Fillmore, 1985). For
instance:
In Engl
ish: “The company’s financial outcome this
quarter was worse than expected, leading to serious
consequences for investors”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning ushbu
chorakdagi moliyaviy natijasi kutilganidan yomonroq
bo‘ldi va bu investorlar uchun jidd
iy oqibatlarga olib
keldi”.
In this example, the words ‘outcome’ and
‘consequences’ appear to be synonymous in context,
but differ in meaning. While ‘outcome’ refers to a
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
49
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
company’s
financial
indicators,
‘consequences’
expresses the problems brought about for investors.
Similarly, in the Uzbek translation, the words ‘natija’
(result) and ‘oqibat’ (consequence) are considered
contextual synonyms respectively.
In English: “The recent changes in tax policy had a
significant effect on small businesses, with noticeable
results in their profitability”.
Translation into Uzbek: “So‘nggi soliq siyosatidagi
o‘zgarishlar kichik bizneslarga sezilarli ta’sir ko‘rsatdi
va ularning rentabelligida natijalar sezildi”.
In this example, the words ‘effect’ and ‘results’ are
used as contextual synonyms. ‘Effect’ means general
impact or change, while ‘results’ shows the
measurable outcomes of this impact. In the Uzbek
language, the words ‘ta’sir’ (effect) and ‘natija’ (result)
can substitute for each other, but they have semantic
differences. While ‘ta’sir’ indicates the cause, ‘natija’ is
the consequence of this cause. This example further
illustrates J.Lyons’ views: contextual synonyms have
substitutability only within context.
In English: “The reduction in in
terest rates brought a
notable impact on consumer spending, with
measurable outcomes in retail sales”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Foiz stavkalarining pasayishi
iste’molchilar xarajatlariga sezilarli ta’sir ko‘rsatdi va
chakana savdo hajmlarida o‘lchanadigan
natijalarga
olib keldi”.
In this example, the words ‘impact’ and ‘outcomes’ are
used as contextual synonyms. Both describe the
consequences of an event, but they carry different
semantic loads. ‘Impact’ has a broader meaning
weight, expressing how noticeable the change is in
general. ‘Outcomes’ refers to the specific results or
indicators of this change. ‘Ta’sir’ (impact) means the
general change directed at consumer behavior due to
interest rates overall. ‘Natija’ (result) refers to the
specifically expressed manifestations of this impact in
the retail market, that is, measurable economic
indicators. Thus, the difference between synonyms
arises from their specific contextual role in the text.
Understanding these differences correctly is important
for accurate translation and comprehension of
economic text.
In English: “The company’s business plan focused on
expanding its operations, but the chosen approach was
too aggressive”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning biznes rejasi
faoliyatini kengaytirishga qaratilgan edi, ammo
tanlangan yondashuv juda tajovuzkor bo‘lib chiqdi”.
‘Plan’ here refers to general plans, that is, the
company’s intended strategy for future operations.
‘Approach’ indicates the method of implementing this
plan. In Uzbek, ‘reja’ (plan) m
eans general objectives,
while ‘yondashuv’ (approach) means the ways to
achieve this objective.
In English: “The investment firm developed a plan to
diversify its portfolio, but its approach to high-risk
markets caused losses”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Investitsiya firmasi o‘z
portfelini diversifikatsiya qilish bo‘yicha reja ishlab
chiqdi, biroq yuqori xavfli bozorlarga nisbatan
yondashuv zararlarni keltirib chiqardi”.
In English: “The bank implemented a policy to address
the economic crisis, though this strategy faced
criticism”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Bank iqtisodiy inqirozga qarshi
siyosat ishlab chiqdi, biroq bu strategiya tanqidlarga
uchradi”.
In this case, the words ‘policy’ and ‘strategy’ substitute
for each other within a certain scope. While ‘policy’
emphasizes rules and measures, ‘strategy’ focuses on
ways to implement these rules. In Uzbek, ‘siyosat’
(policy) and ‘strategiya’ (strategy) also express such
contextual synonymy. It is demonstrated that words can
only be synonymous within a certain framework or
context, and this synonymy depends on specific
conditions.
According to C.Fillmore’s views, synonymy emerges
within certain frames or contexts. These frames
determine the degree of synonymy based on how
language units are used in different situations. The
examples above reveal the pragmatic aspects of
linguistics and demonstrate how synonymy manifests in
economic texts. This view emphasizes the importance of
understanding context when translating financial texts.
Stylistic synonyms are a type of synonymous words that,
despite carrying the same or very similar meaning, differ
stylistically. They are used in various communicative
situations and reveal the aesthetic, pragmatic, and
expressive characteristics of language. F. de Saussure
explains langu
age’s stylistic diversity through stylistic
synonyms and describes them as the richness of
language. Although stylistic synonyms have the same
basic meaning, they express stylistic connotation, social,
cultural, and emotional diversity. F. de Saussure says
about this: “Stylistic synonyms reflect the richness of
language, allowing the speaker to choose words that fit
a particular aesthetic or social context” (de Saussure,
1916).
Stylistic synonyms are studied in linguistics through
paradigmatic relationships. These relationships allow
for analysis of words’ synonymity in the same context
and their semantic differences relative to each other.
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
50
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Below, stylistic synonyms are analyzed based on a
paradigmatic approach with English and Uzbek
examples taken from financial-economic texts:
In English: “The company reported a significant decline
in revenue, which was attributed to the global
recession”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniya daromadlarida
sezilarli pasayish qayd etildi, bu global inqiroz bilan
bog‘landi”.
Synonyms
–
‘decline’ and ‘drop’, ‘pasayish’ and
‘tushish’. ‘Decline’ is widely used in formal and written
texts, suitable for expressing economic concepts.
‘Drop’
is
more
informal,
used
for
verbal
communication.
In
paradigmatic
relationships,
although these synonyms express the same meaning,
their usage depends on stylistic connotation. Similarly
in Uzbek, ‘pasayish’ appears more formal, while
‘tushish’ is informal and has a more emotional impact.
In English: “The board decided to implement
reductions in operational costs to address the financial
crisis”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Boshqaruv moliyaviy
inqirozga qarshi operatsion xarajatlarda qisqartirishlar
kiritishga qaror qildi”.
Synonyms
–
‘reductions’ and ‘cuts’, ‘qisqartirishlar’ and
‘kesishlar’. ‘Reductions’ is neutral and formal, used in
business documents and reports. ‘Cuts’ has emotional
and critical overtones, suitable for informal context.
From a paradigmatic point of view, the semantic
closeness of the synonyms is differentiated by their
connotation.
Similarly in Uzbek, ‘qisqartirishlar’ is
more formal, while ‘kesishlar’ is used more informally
and sometimes with a more negative meaning.
In English: “The firm’s expenses have risen
substantially, leading to a reassessment of the
budget”.
Translation int
o Uzbek: “Firmada xarajatlar sezilarli
oshdi va byudjetni qayta ko‘rib chiqishga olib keldi”.
Synonyms
–
‘expenses’ and ‘costs’, ‘xarajatlar’ and
‘sarflar’. ‘Expenses’ is a formal word adapted to
economic calculations. ‘Costs’ is more general and
suitable for everyday speech. In paradigmatic
relationships, these words provide flexibility in
different contexts. In the Uzbek translation, ‘xarajatlar’
gives a formal meaning, while ‘sarflar’ has a verbal and
emotional tone. Regarding analysis in terms of
expressive diversity, the following can be cited:
In English: “The company’s success in the new market
was unprecedented, bringing significant profits”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning yangi
bozordagi muvaffaqiyati misli ko‘rilmagan edi va katta
daromadla
r keltirdi”.
Synonyms
–
‘success’ and ‘achievement’, ‘muvaffaqiyat’
and ‘erishish’. ‘Success’ is more general and neutral,
used broadly. ‘Achievement’ expresses more emotional
and individual accomplishments. Similarly in Uzbek,
‘muvaffaqiyat’ is neutral, while ‘erishish’ is more literary
and expressive. The paradigmatic approach shows how
these words differ through their emotional loads:
In English: “The firm was able to save a significant
amount of resources through efficient planning”.
Translation
into
Uzbek:
“Kompaniya
samarali
rejalashtirish orqali katta miqdorda resurslarni tejashga
erishdi”.
Synonyms
–
‘save’ and ‘preserve’, ‘tejash’ and ‘asrash’.
‘Save’ is more general and widely used in economic
texts. ‘Preserve’ is more emotional and used in the
sense of protecting resources. In Uzbek, ‘tejash’ is more
economic and formal, while
‘asrash’ conveys a more
literary and emotional meaning.
In English: “The company’s new investment approach
was described as innovative and revolutionary by
industry experts”.
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning yangi
investitsiya yondashuvi soha mutaxassislari tomonidan
innovatsion va inqilobiy sifatida baholandi”.
‘Innovative’ is used to express neutral and technological
novelties. ‘Revolutionary’ emphasizes more emotional
and major changes. In paradigmatic relationships,
although these synonyms are close to each other, their
stylistic loads differ. Similarly in the Uzbek translation,
‘innovatsion’ is more technical and formal, while
‘inqilobiy’ has a literary and emotional tone.
Synonyms in financial-economic texts vividly reflect this
paradigmatic system, as they help form purposeful
speech through meaning and stylistic differences. The
paradigmatic approach to stylistic synonyms is a
powerful theoretical tool for deep analysis of language’s
aesthetic and communicative possibilities.
Emotional synonyms as language units are distinguished
from each other by their emotional connotations and
differences in speech tone. Although these synonyms
carry the same basic semantic meaning, they bring
about significant changes in expressing the speaker’s
emotional attitude, social tone, and purpose. Emotional
synonyms are located in the same semantic domain in
the paradigmatic system, but they differ in emotional,
expressive,
and
purposeful
connotation.
This
paradigmatic approach helps identify the emotional
load and tone of words:
In English: “The company’s financial situation is
troublesome and may lead to challenging decisions”.
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
51
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Translation into Uzbek: “Kompaniyaning moliyaviy
holati mushkul bo‘lib, murakkab qarorlar qabul qilishga
olib kelishi mumkin”.
‘Troublesome’ and ‘challenging’ differ emotionally.
While ‘troublesome’ evokes negative emotion,
‘challenging’ expresses a hopeful and constructive
point of view. In Uzbek, ‘mushkul’ implies negative and
difficult aspects, while ‘murakkab’ is relatively neutral
and implies possibility. The paradigmatic relationship
shows how these words are chosen based on their
emotional loads and communicative purpose.
In English: “The firm’s performance was described as
impressive, while some investors found it remarkable”.
Transla
tion into Uzbek: “Firmaga oid ko‘rsatkichlar
ta’sirli deb baholandi, ba’zi investorlar esa uni e’tiborga
loyiq deb topdilar”.
‘Impressive’ evokes a broader emotional and generally
positive impression, while ‘remarkable’ implies deep
attention and achievement in a special form. In Uzbek,
‘ta’sirli’ is broader and general, while ‘e’tiborga loyiq’
reflects a more special and deeper meaning. Emotional
synonyms reflect emotional and semantic richness in
the paradigmatic system.
In English: “The downturn in the m
arket was labeled as
alarming by experts, though others saw it as
manageable”.
Translation
into
Uzbek:
“Bozordagi
pasayish
mutaxassislar tomonidan tashvishli deb baholandi,
ba’zilari esa buni boshqariladigan holat sifatida ko‘rdi”.
‘Alarming’ is enriched w
ith emotion and evokes
concern, while ‘manageable’ indicates possibility and
control. In Uzbek, ‘tashvishli’ implies danger, while
‘boshqariladigan’ indicates hope and possibility of
control. This shows how paradigmatic relationships
reflect emotional and social diversity.
Thus, emotional synonyms provide emotional diversity
in the paradigmatic system and allow synonyms to
manage emotional impact. They facilitate achieving
communicative goals. The choice of synonym matches
the listener’s or reader’s reactio
n. They enhance
speech aesthetics and allow selecting words
appropriate to social and emotional context.
Emotional synonyms in financial-economic texts
reflect different perspectives in terms of emotional
load and tone, which clarifies and enriches speech. The
paradigmatic relationship helps to understand more
deeply how they complement each other within the
system and their role in context.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relationships in financial-economic texts reveals that
these linguistic connections play a crucial role in
understanding and translating financial terminology
between English and Uzbek languages. The study
demonstrates that while absolute synonyms are rare in
general language use, they occur more frequently in
technical financial fields, though each term often carries
its own subtle contextual or stylistic differences. The
examination of contextual, stylistic, and emotional
synonyms shows how these relationships operate
within specific frameworks, allowing for precise
expression of financial concepts while maintaining
semantic accuracy across languages.
The research findings also support the theoretical
frameworks proposed by F. de Saussure regarding
syntagmatic
relationships
(in
praesentia)
and
paradigmatic relationships (in absentia), particularly in
how they manifest in financial-economic discourse. The
study demonstrates that financial terms in both English
and Uzbek languages form complex systems of
interconnected and complementary units, where words
cannot exist in isolation from the general nominative
system. This systematic nature of linguistic relationships
proves essential for accurate translation and effective
communication of financial concepts between the two
languages, while maintaining the appropriate stylistic
and emotional connotations required in various
professional contexts.
REFERENCES
Asher, R.E. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and
linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. (2003). New illustrated
encyclopedia. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia.
Bel Enguix, G., Rapp, R., & Zock, M. (2014). A graph-
based approach for computing free word associations.
In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on
Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3027
–
3033).
Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources
Association.
Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics
(C.Bally & A.Sechehaye, Eds.). Paris: Payot.
de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics
(W.Baskin, Transl.; C.Bally & A.Sechehaye, Eds.). New
York: Philosophical Library.
Evens, M.W., Litowitz, B.E., Markowitz, J.A., Smith, R.N.,
& Weaner, O. (1980). Lexical-semantic relations: A
comparative survey (Current Inquiry into Language and
Linguistics No. 34). Carbondale, IL, and Edmonton,
Ontario, Canada: Linguistic Research, Inc.
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of
understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222
–
254.
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
52
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Great Russian Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Paradigmatics. In
Great Russian Encyclopedia online. Retrieved
December
26,
2024,
from
https://old.bigenc.ru/linguistics/text/2706665.
Hjørland, B. (2015), Are relations in Thesauri “Context
-
free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds”?.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology,
66(7),
1367
–
1373.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23253.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based
perspective. New York: Routledge.
Khoo, C.S.G., & Na, J.C. (2006). Semantic relations in
information science. Annual Review of Information
Science
and
Technology,
40(1),
157
–
228.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440400112.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sahlgren, M. (2006). The word-space model: Using
distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relations between words in high-
dimensional vector spaces [Doctoral dissertation,
Stockholm University]. The Digital Scientific Archive.
https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A189276&d
swid=2550
