CC BY
0ARTIFICIAL SEMANTIC MEMORY OF NOUNS IN UZBEK
LANGUAGE
Zarmasov Sh.
Researcher of Andijan State University https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13150932
Abstract. This article talks about the semantic field of the noun group, members of the semantic field, types of paradigmatic relations, and similar and conflicting features of the members of the paradigm. The relationship of paradigms in the semantic field of nouns is stored in the minds of language owners as an essence that is not directly observable. In the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics, the model of such unobservables is gathered as essence, generality. However, the modeling process is carried out by identifying, comparing, sorting and summarizing the most important features of the "observable" feature. In the article, as the linguistic base of the artificial semantic memory of the national corpus of Uzbek language, the paradigms in the semantic field of nouns are modeled nationally in a form that is not given in direct observation, and recommendations are given for modeling. At the end of this small study, it is concluded that the linguistic and cultural world of Uzbek speakers should be artificially reflected in the national corpus of Uzbek language.
Keywords: modeling, national model, semantic field, semantic network, artificial semantic memory, lexical meaning groups, paradigm, set-classification, paradigmatic relation, stepwise relation, nesting, national corpus of Uzbek language, computer linguistics.
Globalization has accelerated the automation of social life. Today's society seeks to obtain information in an automated form. In science, a number of researches are being carried out on the creation of artificial intelligence systems. In particular, human-computer communication was optimized, an electronic corpus of language units, electronic dictionaries and electronic resources of the semantic field were created.
It is known that approaching the language as a system, distinguishing dialectical categories such as generality-specificity in language units and their interaction lead to the study of the semantic space of the universe as a huge systematic area, which is a set of infinite paradigms. F. Berezin compares the language to a huge fabric, each fiber of which is tightly connected with other fibers.
The term semantic field was first used by Y. Trier. By the term semantic field, he means "the field or range of concepts". After that, V. Portsig "essentially related to each other", G. Ipsen "ability of words to form certain groups", A. Yolles "semantic combination of lexical units", F. Dornzeif and V. Wertburgs express ideas such as "semantic grouping of lexemes". Among Uzbek linguistics, the opinions of famous linguists such as A. Nurmonov, H. Nematov, R. Rasulov, E. Begimov, T. Mirzakulov, Sh. Iskandarova, O. Bozorov, B. Kilichev, R. Safarova, H. Hojiyeva, M. Narziyeva, I. Kochkortoyev and A. Sobirov about the concept of semantic field are of great importance. But between "emotional" and "conceptual" meanings, between "meaning" and "signification", between "content" and "reference", between "denotation" and "connotation", the boundaries between "sign" and "symbol" have not yet been fully defined.
In this article, the above boundaries, which constitute the essence of the semantic field, are separated on the basis of the generality-specificity dialectic, the lexemes in the minds of the
national language owners are combined based on certain laws, and the issues of creating an artificial semantic field (memory) in computer linguistics during merging the semantic field of the noun word group are analyzed in the example.
It is a complex process that the world finds its reflection in the human mind, and then its manifestation in language as a secondary image. Moving away from dissimilar signs, similar, identical signs are distinguished, they are compared and summarized as an essence, thus a concept is formed, and it, in turn, finds its expression in a specific lexeme. Modeling the semantic field in this order allows language owners to fully understand the main collection of lexical units used in a certain field, to use the most necessary of them (the ones that are needed) in the process of communication, to teach the meaningful connection of lexical units. Subjects reminding each other in the semantic field of the noun form united, combined groups based on paradigmatic relation. Such lexical meaning groups have a "non-directly observable" form in the minds of language owners.
Similar and some different lexemes are combined in paradigms belonging to the noun family that are not directly observable, and different signs cannot deny the similarity. These paradigms are given in abstract models in artificial semantic memory of computational linguistics. Let's look at it on the example of animals: animals are stored in the minds of LMG speakers as a generality, an essence, a possibility. This group of lexical meanings is called zoonyms in linguistics, animal names such as wolf, bear, lion, horse, cow, cat, goat, deer, fox included in the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics [ [Horse] A (t-zoo) ] is artificially grouped under the national model.
According to the linguist scientist A. Sobirov, "it is important to pay attention to the extensional and intensional signs of things and events when defining the paradigms of the semantic field." According to L. Novikov, extensional represents a general class, and intensional represents the uniqueness corresponding to this class. Hence, the relation of expansionary-intentionality corresponds exactly to the dialectic of generality-particularity in the semantic field. For example, if animals form a paradigm of zoonyms according to their extensional signs, wild animals and domestic animals are divided according to their intensional signs. In the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics, zoonyms are a common class - as extensional [ [Ot] A(t-zoo) ] national model, divided according to the content of the national model, as well as an internal paradigm divided according to conflicting signs - wild animals as intensionals - [ [Ot] _yovvoyiA (t-zoo) ]; domestic animals - [ [Horse] _uyA(t-zoo) ] are also included in the national models. So, the opposition of members of a paradigm shows that a particular paradigm is a sum of several other paradigms.
Other paradigms in the semantic framework built on the basis of the extensional-intentionality category of language and speech dialectics can be modeled on the basis of the above approach. For example, [ [Ot] A(t-hydro) ] for infinite hydronyms such as brook, stream, river; extensional national models [ [Ot] A(t-phyto) ] are given for unlimited phytonyms such as tree names, flower names, grass names, etc.
The famous linguist scientist A. Nurmonov interprets the paradigmatic relationship as the relationship of units belonging to the same level, as gathering of similar concepts into certain nests. In his opinion, the common meaning that is the basis for combining lexemes into one nest must be repeated in all members of this nest. There are many such nests in the semantic field of Uzbek language.
For example, in the lexemes violet, spinach, dandelion, sorrel, mint, the general meaning is plant; in the lexemes of village, city, desert, the general meaning is place; in the lexemes of nightingale, parrot, and hawk, the general meaning is bird; in the lexemes of pen, book, cup, carpet, and rice, the general meaning is item; in the lexemes misqal, batmon, hovuch, siqim, the general meaning is quantity; in lexemes school, office, shop, market, generalizing meaning - organization, institution. Among these, for names of plants that are not nouns [ [Ot] A(t-phyto) ]; for place names that are not proper nouns, a transposition model is created by moving the onomastic model in the form [ [Ot] A(t-topo) ]. Because the names ofplants, birds and places are grouped under a separate name in Uzbek onomastics. However, there is complexity in extensional and intensional modeling of later lexical paradigms. Therefore, we are limited to their intensional model: for the paradigm representing organization-institution names [ [Ot] _tashkilotAt ]; for the paradigm representing item names [ [Ot] _itemAt ]; intentional national models are given in the form [ [ Ot] _miqdorAt ] for the paradigm representing quantity names. This shows that it is necessary to clearly define the system of proper nouns.
The conflict of paradigms built in the dialectic of language and speech divides a large set, a small set and classifications. This division corresponds exactly to our thoughts on extensional-intensionality according to A. Sobirov. In particular, the models of meaning groups of nouns are built on the basis of the set-classification relationship. Therefore, within each large paradigm there are a number of small paradigms based on the conflict of certain signs. For example, the set of zoonyms is divided into the following subgroups: calf, body, heifer, cow, beef, ox, bull, ...cattle; horse, baytal, biya, stallion, saman, yorga, yobu, torik, jiiron, Bedouin horse. horse; sheep, ram, lamb, buck, hisori, Arabi, Merikos... sheep; dog, kanjik, koppak, borobosar, greyhound, Georgian, puppy dog; donkey, mocha, colt, mule ... like a donkey.
Among the classifications (lexemes) of the above lexical sets, there is a difference according to age, gender and species characteristics. In the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics, lexemes are included in a separate model according to their characteristics. Example: horse, baytal, biya, stallion, saman, yorga, yobu, torik, jiyron, Bedouin horse. the words baytal, biya, jiiron in contrast according to gender characteristics [[ Ot] _(ot-(a))A(t-zoo) ]; the words aygir, saman, yorga, yobu, torik, Bedov are included in the national model [[ Horse] _(ot-€)A(t-zoo) ].
As another example, let's consider the models of the set of cattle created on the basis of various oppositions: calf, body, heifer, cow, beef, ox, bull, ... national model of the set was given in the form [Horse] _cattleA( t-zoo). If the members of this paradigm are typed into the "opposition chain" according to their age, it is given in the national model [[ Horse] _cattleA(t-zoo|) ], the symbol [ [_a|] ] in the model represents the feature of growth in terms of age. If the members of the set are separated according to gender, for body, heifer, cow, beef, [ [ Horse ] _(cattle-(a))A(t-zoo) ]; [[ Horse] _(cattle-€)A(t-zoo) ] model is presented for ox, bull, the symbol [ K_(€)a ] ] and [ [_((a)) a ] ] represent gender characteristics. If the age and sex characteristics of the members of the set are combined, for body, heifer, cow, beef, [[ Cat] _(cattle-(a))A(t-zoo|) ]; national model [[ Horse] _(cattle-€)A(t-zoo|) ] for ox, bull is given as a set-model.
In addition, linguists say that there are "contrasts of equal value" between the members of the paradigm. In this conflict, classifications (lexemes) emerge as a type of collection. For
example, melons such as borikalla, eskichopon, amiri, kirqma, gulobi, old melon, umrbogi, aravakash, chogari; prose such as poem, feuilleton, essay, novella, short story, novel; poetry such as ghazal, tuyuq, rubai, fard, masnavi, qasida, white poem, poem, epic; drama such as drama, comedy, tragedy, tragicomedy; such as soup, mastava, pilaf, ugra, lagmon, manti, shavla, dimlama, roast, etc. are combined into a dish and form a set in the semantic field of the noun. These paradigms are stored as models in the artificial semantic memory of computer programs. We use [[ Name] _melonAt ] for the melon paradigm as a semantic memory source; for prose paradigm - [[ Ot] _proseAt ]; for verse paradigm - [[ Ot] _nazmAt ]; for drama paradigm - [[ Name] _dramaAt ]; for the food paradigm, we presented national models in the form of [[ Ot] _taomAt ] as invariants. These models are stored in the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics as generalities, essences, possibilities, sets that have not been activated (not directly observed).
A paradigm based on equal value can move to the position of a small paradigm and form a large paradigm. For example, small paradigms such as prose, poetry, and drama belong to the (large) paradigm of literature; small paradigms of sculpture, painting, cinema, theater merge into the paradigm of art [[ Ot] _adabiyotAt ] for literature in computer linguistics; national models are given for art in the form [[ Ot] _san'atAt ]. The distinction between a large paradigm and a small paradigm or a large set and a small set in the semantic field of a noun leads to the conclusion that the paradigmatic relation is built on a stepwise basis, in which the semantic field is evaluated as the largest paradigm or the largest set.
Among the paradigmatic relations, the relation of duty, which is observed within the framework of the horse family, is also important. In direct observation, given speech units generalized according to their function and their mental device are created as an invariant model. For example, the lexical units in the paradigmatic series of lungs, larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, palate, tongue, teeth, gums, lips according to the task of forming speech sounds are gathered together and entered into the semantic memory of the national corpus of Uzbek language [ [Ot ] _speechA(t-V) ] with the national model; lexical units in the paradigmatic series of teeth, oral cavity, tongue, stomach, gall, intestine, stomach, large intestine, kidney grouped according to the function of digestion are compiled and added to the semantic memory of the national corpus of Uzbek language [ [Ot] _hazmA(t-V) ] with the national model; car, bus, trolleybus, tram, taxi, train, boat, ship, steamship, ship, ferry, airplane, helicopter, airbus, rocket paradigmatic lexical units gathered in one place according to the function of transportation and being part of the national corpus of Uzbek language are entered into the semantic memory with the national model [ [Ot ] _qatnovA(t-V) ]. However, depending on where the commuting takes place, small paradigms of cooperation can be formed. In this case, the words car, bus, trolleybus, tram, taxi, train [ [Ot] _(carriage-land)A(t-V)]; words boat, ship, steamer, ship, ferry [ [Ot] _(transport-water)A(t-V) ]; the words airplane, helicopter, airbus, rocket are given in national models [ [Ot] _(travel-space)A(t-V)].
Countless paradigms created naturally or artificially in the semantic field of the noun are modeled on the basis of the above approach. This divides the semantic field into two -particularity, event, reality given to direct observation and generality, essence, possibility behind them. In computer linguistics, the tasks performed by various automatic analyzers are a phenomenon, a reality, and the models that ensure the operation of the automatic analyzer are an
essence, a possibility, which are not directly observed. Everything is balanced by the law of materialization as an essence and its singular phenomenon.
In another type of paradigmatic relationship, as a result of the joining of members, one goes towards the common essence, that is, the parts are collected and become a whole. H. Nematov and R. Rasulov call it false contradictions. A. Sobirov evaluates it as a whole-part relationship. In this paradigm, components are given as parts of a set, and if one of the parts is removed, incompleteness occurs. For example, a costume requires partial names such as sleeve, collar, button, side pocket, breast pocket, thief pocket, hem, lining as a whole name. These parts are given in the whole model [[ Ot] _costumA(a-0) ] in computational linguistics. Therefore, in the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics, each whole is presented in a separate model and collects its parts. As a result, this type creates a special large-scale artificial semantic memory. Including hair, eyebrow, eyelid, eyelash, eye, ear, nose, mouth, forehead, neck, chin lexemes to the model [[ Ot] _boshA(a-0) ]; lexemes finger, palm, nail, elbow, shoulder to the model [[ Horse] _handA(a-0) ]; the lexemes of nail, palm, heel, ankle, marrow, knee, bolder, thigh are combined into the model [[ Horse] _footA(a-0) ]. Also, these three paradigms move to the position of a small paradigm and form a large paradigm in the chain of head, foot, and hand, and for these, an abstract national model in the form of [[ Ot] _tanaA(a-0) ] is created in computer linguistics.
Also, the paradigmatic relationship is realized closely with the customs, traditions, sociopolitical life and history of the language owners. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the language owners when modeling the lexical meaning groups of nouns, summarizing the most important signs of classifications, defining the set as the essence of this generality. For example, if national dishes such as soup, mastava, pilaf, ugra, lagmon, manti, shovla, dimlama, roast are included in the national model [[ Ot] _taomAt ], a separate model will be created for European dishes.
In general, the first, main criterion in the transmission of language and speech is "non-observability" and "observability". The relationship of paradigms in the semantic field of nouns is stored in the minds of language owners as an essence that is not directly observable. In the artificial semantic memory of computer linguistics, the model of such unobservables is gathered as essence, generality. However, the modeling process is carried out by identifying, comparing, sorting and summarizing the most important features of the "observable" feature. In this regard, N. Komlev says: "We see the world as it is, in its original state, and on this basis we divide and classify words into certain groups." So, when classifying things and events in the human world into classes, dividing them into species and genders, into certain groups of meaning, first of all, it is based on the system of relations between them, and this relation is not violated even in the process of modeling. The linguistic and cultural world of Uzbek speakers should be artificially reflected in the national corpus of Uzbek language.
REFERENCES
1. Berezin F.M. History of linguistics. - Moscow: Visshaya school, 1975. - S. 50-51.
2. Nematov H., Rasulov R. Basics of system lexicology of the Uzbek language. Tashkent: Teacher, 1995, p. 113.
3. Nikitin M.V. Meaning of basic linguistic theory. - Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1988. - S. 2627.
4. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. - Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1982. - S. 31-32.
5. Novoe v zarubezhnoy linguistics. Vyp. 24. Computer linguistics. - Moscow: Progress, 1989. - S. 10.
6. Sobirov A. System-structural study of the lexicon of the Uzbek language. Monograph. - T.: "Booknomy print", 2022. - B. 100.
7. Philosophy (study guide). -Tashkent: Main editorial office of Sharq publishing-printing concern, 1999. - B. 205.
8. Shemyakin Yu.I. Nachala kompchternoy lingvistiki. Can fly. - M.: Izd-vo MGOU, A/O "Rosvuznauka", 1992.
