CC BY
4
Usakhov R.M.
1st year doctoral student Karakalpak State University
LINGUISTIC BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BILINGUAL (ENGLISH-KARAKALPAK) DICTIONARY
Abstract. Dictionary usage is a way to express a society's culture, as well as its distinctive national characteristics and aspects of daily life. This article places particular emphasis on the need to create bilingual dictionaries for English and Karakalpak, taking into account their structural, social, and cultural purposes. The structure, techniques, and means of producing dictionaries, as well as research on the creation of the English-Karakalpak bilingual dictionary as one of the representations of the English and Karakalpak worlds, are all given specific emphasis in this study. Comparative analysis is the research's fundamental methodology. The study's findings show that each language's word systems have some commonalities and some differences.
Keywords: dictionary, vocabulary, bilingualism, English language, Karakalpak language, formation, structure, organization.
Introduction. The terms lexicology and lexicography are derived from the Greek word "lexico," which is an adjective from the noun lexis, which means "speech,""way of speaking," or "word." They are extremely connected, and as the latter depends on the former directly, applied lexicology may be used to describe it. Lexicology is a field of linguistics that studies the vocabulary and character qualities of specific words and word families. Two linguistics subfields both discuss the concept of "word". A "word" is the primary lexical component of a language that is created when a group of sounds are connected to a meaning.[2, 4-5].
Bilingual dictionaries undoubtedly perform one of the most significant roles in language learning, and their absence from the educational process is unthinkable. They are still the most frequently used reference materials for learning a second or foreign language at all levels. In addition to being helpful for students, bilingual dictionaries are also valuable for travelers, linguists undertaking research, and anyone who need to translate various vital documents, such as diplomas or medical instructions, into a foreign language. Furthermore, dictionaries must be well-made and simple to use. Due to this, lexicography—and bilingual lexicography in particular—is becoming more and more significant [4, 21-22].
It should be noted that bilingual lexicography is a more particular term than lexicography itself, and that it can be defined as the process of developing bilingual dictionaries. In other words, a bilingual dictionary presents the vocabulary and phraseology of one language (referred to as the source language)
and translates these components into a second language (known to as the target language), producing equivalent words in two languages.
The challenges in this area and the lexicography of bilingual dictionaries, particularly English-Karakalpak and Karakalpak-English dictionaries, are the main topics of this study.
The structure of the English-Karakalpak dictionary may be broken down into three main components: external or supplementary matter, macro-structure, and micro-structure.
The front, middle, and back matter—which frequently includes the inside covers and, increasingly, the outside covers and dust jacket—comes in addition to the center word list or the dictionary entries from A to Z and from A to Ch (English-Karakalpak and Karakalpak-English dictionaries). Most essential, a user's handbook or dictionary key can be found in the front matter.
The key is now regarded as crucial, although both users and reviewers frequently appear to neglect it. It describes the metalanguage, symbols, codes, punctuation, intricate typography, and entry layout of the dictionary as well as its style, structure, and content. It frequently takes the form of copies of sample entries with each macro- and micro-structure component underlined and discussed in turn [7].
The list and arrangement of the lexical items placed in the dictionary, the lemmas or headwords, is referred to as the macro-structure. Lemma is chosen in this case because it has no bearing on the morphological condition of the objects. Practically speaking, the lemma list is based on the anticipated volume and range of the dictionary. It can be rather selective, as in compact pocket dictionaries, or quite thorough, as in huge unabridged books. Current one-volume defining dictionaries typically stress the fundamental core vocabulary of current standard usage while putting equal emphasis on new words and meanings as well as terminology from science and technology, depending on size and goal.
The lemmas are now nearly always arranged alphabetically. It must be decided whether to treat each item as a main lemma or to make a distinction between main lemma and sub-lemma. Lexicographers must decide how to group or organize these into nests or niches, how to distinguish main lemmas from sublemmas, and whether to provide all or some sub-lemmas with a full or partial range of lexicographic information or to simply list them as run-ons.
The lexicographic details about the lemma that are provided in the dictionary article are referred to as micro-structure. Different dictionaries have different rules on what they consider to be lexically relevant information and how they present it. The micro-structure frequently offers details about the shape, significance, and application of the lemma. Formal information may comprise spelling, pronunciation, inflected forms, and part-of-speech information, such as mass nouns, transitive or ergative verbs, predicative adjectives, and approved variants in many standard varieties.
Definitions or explanations of literal and figurative, denotative and connotative meanings are included in semantic information. These could be synonyms or nearly-synonyms, like analytical definitions with genus proximum and differentiae specificae, or they could be formulae or paraphrases. They are typically supplemented with pragmatic information or diasystematic marking on register, frequency, currency, style, status, and subject area. Paradigmatic information covers lexical fields involving synonyms, antonyms, or hyponyms. Syntagmatic information covers lexical collocation, grammatical colligation, and complementation.
They may also include cross-references to other entries or to extra-textual middle and back matter, as well as authentic, adapted, and constructed textual examples, usage notes, brief essays on synonyms, and indications of word-formational activity, particularly for derivatives and compounds that are not lemmatized and described separately. The micro-structure's typeface and layout must, like the macro-structure, be primarily user-friendly. [1, 12-13]
Taking into account the above-given data, it is time to present some examples based on the comparison of two languages. Translation English-Karakalpak:
Combination / ... / n (mixture) kombinatsiya; (code) kod.
Karakalpak-English:
Tutqin-prisoner, captive
Equivalents
Full equivalence:
English-Karakalpak:
Condensed milk - Quyultirilgan sut
Karakalpak -English:
Otiw dawiri - transitional age
Partial equivalence:
English-Karakalpak:
Ride - Togay joli
Karakalpak-English:
Gamxorliq qiliw - look after
Zero equivalence: Use direct borrowing, new coinage, loan-translation, or description.
English-Karakalpak: Fiskal- Fiskal Karakalpak-English: Kefir - kefir Near -equivalent English-Karakalpak:
Foreign Secretary n (BRIT) ( Sirtqi lsler ministri Karakalpak-English:
Direktsiya (mektep) (board (of governors) Gloss
English -Karakalpak:
National / ... / adj [...] (BRIT) National curriculum
Uliwma programma (oqitiw ) (mekteplerde)
Karakalpak-English:
Kapusta sorpa - cabbage soup
Example + translation
English-Karakalpak:
Narrowly /.../ adv [...] he only narrowly avoided injury Ol derlik jarahatlanbawga hareket etti Karakalpak-English:
Xizmet etiw.Qanday xizmet etiwim mumkin? What can I do for you?
We should know word classes, mainly a traditional, grammatical categorization as well: Nouns (cat, terek) Verbs (run, kuliw) Adjectives (beautiful, batir) Adverbs (fluently, birden) Prepositions (near, ushin) Abbreviations (USIA, CCCP) Multi - word terms (had better, used to)
Conclusion. The data above can be used to draw the conclusion that creating bilingual dictionaries is a difficult task because it involves covering every aspect of the entire language. The primary methods for creating bilingual dictionaries were considered when creating the English-Karakalpak translation. The English-Karakalpak dictionary was created using three main component elements, specifically outside or supplementary matter, macro-structure, and micro-structure. The alphabetical arrangement of the bilingual dictionary's parts is A-Z for the English language and A-Ch for the Karakalpak language. Additionally, the main word classes were considered when creating the bilingual dictionary, including nouns (cat, terek), verbs (run, kuliw), adjectives (beautiful, batir), adverbs (fluently, birden), prepositions (near, ushin), abbreviations (USIA, P), and multi-word phrases. (had better, used to). Overall, the presented materials in the article are considered as valuable in the formation of English-Karakalpak dictionary.
References:
1. Al-Kasimi, Ali M. Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries. Leiden: Brill, 2002 - pp.12-13, 55
2. Atkins B.T.S. Bilingual Dictionaries. Past, Present and future. On-line EC Compass project, 2001 - pp. 4-5
3. Berkov V.P. Bilingual Lexicography. SPb, 2004 - 4p
Deny A. Kwary. Bilingual Lexicography. 2008 presentation, slides 4-6
4. Piotrowsky, Tadeusz. Problems in Bilingual Lexicography. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego, 2006 - 10, 21-22
5. Rundell: Introducing Bilingual Lexicography. New Zealand; Lexicom, 2012 -27p
6. Баскаков Н.А. Состав лексики каракалпакского языка и структура слова, сб. «Исследования по сравнительной грамматике тюркских языков». IV лексика.М., 1962.
7. Бердимуратов Е. Хрзирги каракалпак тили. Лексикология.Некис, 1994.
8. Насыров Д. Бекбергенов А. Бекназаров В. К,аракалпак тил билими бойынша библиографиялык керсеткиш. Некис, 1978.
9. Насыров Д. Бекбергенов А. Каракалпакское языкознания. Некис. 1989
10. Неъматов X,., Расулов Р. узбек тили систем лексикологиясы асослари. Тошкент.,1995
