CC BY
0Central Asian Journal of
Education and Innovation
SOCIOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF THE LEXEME "EYE' Shabanova Sevinch Djumaliyevna
1st year basic doctoral student Uzbekistan State University of World Languages https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12515428
w>___
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Qabul qilindi: 15-June 2024 yil Ma'qullandi: 20- June 2024 yil Nashr qilindi: 24- June 2024 yil
KEY WORDS
phrases, lexical-semantic field, lexeme "eye", surface structure, thematic groups..
The article highlights the structural and semantic properties of the constituents of the lexical-semantic field "eye(s)". By the lexical-semantic field "eyes" we mean a system of linguistic units united around the invariant archiseme "eyes", having their own semantic niche in this field, differing morphological and syntactic structure, being in a semantic connection of varying degrees with each other - close or distant, mono- and polysemic, mono- or polyfunctional, being in a paradigmatic or syntagmatic connection with each other, active and passive in function, having different emotional expressions -expressive coloring.
As L. S. Barkhudarov notes, "the concept of pragmatics is not limited solely to the concept of the pragmatic meaning of linguistic units - it is much broader and includes all issues related to the varying degrees of understanding by participants in the communicative process of certain signs or messages and their different interpretations depending on the linguistic and extralinguistic experience of the participants in communication." 27 The semantic structure of a word is the semantic structure of the basic unit of vocabulary. It manifests itself in its polysemy as the ability, with the help of internally related meanings, to name (designate) various objects (phenomena, properties, qualities, relationships, actions and states). The semantic structure of an unambiguous word is reduced to its semantic composition.
V. I. Goverdovsky calls words with pragmatic meaning "connotes." Connotes contain various information: they reflect a segment of information about the subjective reflection of the objective world and the speaker's emotional attitude to the subject of speech; convey a set of information about linguistic factors determined by the relationship between language and reality; provide information about the outside world.55 Thus, the appearance of ideological semantics in a word transfers it to the category of ideologemes. Aznaurova E.S. writes: "...the whole picture of the world, its history, the whole life of a person in society, passed through the collective human consciousness, is reflected in language, in words, and, finding appropriate forms of expression, becomes the content of communication; Man, as the creator and "sculptor" of the word, turns out to be the central figure of a functioning language. That is why in the word, and even more clearly in the artistic word, as in a focal mirror, many problems of studying language in the communicative-pragmatic aspect, "language in action", "language in a
communication situation" are reflected. J. Leach offers several postulates for distinguishing semantics and pragmatics, but in his latest work he comes to the conclusion that these two disciplines need to be considered as complementary to each other. "Both semantics and pragmatics are related to the meaning of a linguistic sign, but the difference between them is interpreted from the point of view of different understandings of the verb "mean." Semantics answers the question "what does it mean?". Pragmatics answers the question "What do you want to say by using a word?" Thus, pragmatic meaning is born in speech segments and depends on the speaker's intention and on his choice of appropriate linguistic means. The choice of word itself can be qualified as a speech act - it is "aimed" at a certain effect on the addressee. However, over time, the pragmatic meaning is assigned to a separate word and becomes a component of lexical semantics.
The following analysis of the semantic structure of the lexeme "eye" will be based not on the meanings found in explanatory dictionaries, but on the analysis of 500 examples from the corpus of the Uzbek, Russian and English languages. As the researchers note, "the use of a corpus that captures the natural context of the use of individual meanings of polysemantic units increases the degree of validity of research findings, minimizing the share of subjectivity in interpretations and incompleteness of the analyzed material, primarily due to the significant amount of data and its granularity." Further, it should be emphasized that the analysis is based on the meanings of the lexeme "in order to abstract from specific word forms and draw conclusions of a more general nature".
Central Meaning: The central meaning of the lexeme "eye" refers to the physical organ of vision. Examples of such use are not difficult to find: It is impossible to look at his sad eyes, the gray strand of hair on his forehead, the wrinkles without emotion... There is no need to say much about the central meaning. In such examples, there is no expansion of meaning, but it is from the central meaning that all other meanings, that is, lexical-semantic variants, will be created. In this way, the central meaning is the most frequent individual meaning, but also, if you look at the dichotomy "central meaning / lexical-semantic variants", then the central meaning is more frequent than the lexical-semantic variants in general. It should be emphasized here that in this work the difference between the meanings of "beautiful eyes" and "blue eyes" (we are not talking about the same part of the eye) will not be considered a lexical-semantic variant, since the denotation is still the physical organ of vision.
Lexical-semantic variants: The analysis of lexical-semantic variants will begin with a very common type of metonymy, "the name of an organ denotes a person". Example: If, when buying curtains, you want them to please the male eye, pay attention to the results of sociological surveys conducted recently in Europe; And when I look at the new tents, my eyes are happy. In the examples it is obvious that the eyes are not pleasing; they cannot rejoice in the truest sense. Here there is a metonymic transfer from a part (eyes) to a whole (person). The choice of the eyes is due to the reason for joy in both examples: a person rejoices because of something he sees with his eyes. If the reason for joy were not visual, the choice of eyes would be inappropriate. Out of 500 examples, this type of transfer appeared only 4 times.
A very rare, but still existing, meaning (at least in 500 analyzed examples) can be interpreted as the ability to see": for example, a policeman stopped me and asked if I had eyes. Here we can assume that the question is not literal, and that it actually refers to the ability to use the eyes. This meaning reveals the metonymy "the name of the instrument denotes an
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND INNOVATION SJIF = 5.281
action"; the eyes are associated with their function. We cannot talk about metaphor here, since the central meaning and the "ability to see" are parts of the same conceptual area. This value is slightly less common than the above, it appeared 3 times.
The following meaning is the most frequent of the lexical-semantic variants meaning (54.7% of all non-central uses of the lexeme) and the other in frequency in general: it appeared 81 times: for example, I poured myself some tea and looked up at my husband: "Lesh, do you want some tea or coffee? Here, the eyes are not literally raised to the husband, they remain in the head, but the wife's gaze is raised here as the source of the gaze by which the surrounding is perceived, "look" is a metonymic transfer, for the same reasons.
The remaining lexical-semantic options that will be given are conceptually more distant from the central meaning than "the ability to see" and "look", so they can be considered not metonymic, but metaphorical transfers, but, as we will see, they are associated not only with the central meaning , and also with lexical-semantic variants: for example, Or some idea pops into your head and, realizing that you are becoming an eccentric in the eyes of others, you explain your "eureka" and get angry that no one cares about it. In the example, the meaning of the word "eye" can be interpreted as "point of view, understanding." Of course, this meaning is related to the central meaning, but at the same time, there is also a close connection between "point of view" and "view", and this connection is due to embodied cognition. When the position of the eye's changes, the perception of the object in question, which seems to be inside the gaze, also changes; he literally looks different to the beholder. The same result is obtained if it is not the position of the eyes that changes, but the position of the object in question.
In this way, by changing the position, the understanding of the object also changes. This value appeared 34 times, for example, while you are "applying your makeup and polishing your tuning," they will take away your prestigious workplace, buy the yacht you have your eye on, and take the girl away from under your nose. In this example, the meaning of the word "eye" is interpreted as "attention", since it is not the fact that the yacht is within the gaze that is emphasized, but that the person is thinking about it and desires it. Again, embodied cognition plays a role: we see objects within the gaze, and if they are in the focus of the gaze, then we pay attention to them. This meaning appeared a little less frequently than the previous one, 23 times: for example, they call you "haval Lena" ("my friend Lena"), shake your hand, and in their eyes, there is war. Here the war is clearly not in the eyes, but in the minds, that is, judging by the appearance of people (probably by their expression, most of which is built before the eyes), one can assume that these people are thinking about war. Unlike the previous two meanings, the meaning "mind" is very rare, at least in the sample: it appeared only 3 times.
Conclusion. From the analysis carried out, a semantic structure is obtained, shown in the table. If you look at this structure, namely at the relationships between lexical-semantic variants, and bearing in mind the above types of semantic connections (radial, chain, mixed), we can draw the following conclusion: the difference between radial and chain connections lies, in fact, in the number of connected elements; a radial bond is the beginning of a chain bond. As structure expands on the basis of metaphorical and metonymic processes, there is always in principle the potential for chain-like expansion of meaning.
AN EYE
Human
Sight
The ability to see
Attention I Point of view i
à m
Mind
Therefore, radial bonds can be considered a certain type of chain bonds, consisting of only one element. In this way, the structure of a polysemantic word can consist of either one or more separate chains. Bearing in mind the ideas about the metonymic basis of metaphor presented in the theoretical part, it is necessary to emphasize the following: non-central meanings that are directly related to the central one are metonymic meanings, and the remaining non-central meanings are metaphorical in relation to the central meaning, but metonymic in relation to the vocabulary associated with them -semantic version. In other words, the chains in the semantic structure can be defined as metonymic chains.
If we compare the resulting semantic structure with the semantic structure of the lexeme "eye" in English, we will see that the central meaning of the lexeme "eye" appears more often among 500 examples than in English, in which less than half of the examples were central, although in English the central meaning was the most frequent. In other words, in English, lexico-semantic variants together occur more often than the central meaning. In addition, the number of individual non-central meanings is greater: 10 lexical-semantic variants were found in English, and six in Russian and Uzbek. In addition to this, semantic chains in English were longer than in Russian. But at the same time, it must be emphasized that the differences are, in principle, observed in the number of values and their frequency; As
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND INNOVATION SJIF = 5.281
for the structures themselves, they largely coincide. The semantic structure of the lexeme "eye" in English is more expanded than in Russian, but all the meanings that are observed in Russian are also observed in English, which indicates a certain degree of universality in the direction of derivation of meanings.
The analysis of the semantic structure of the lexeme "eye" showed that in real language it is far from being used only in its central meaning. The lexical-semantic variants of this lexeme are not a random, arbitrary set of unrelated meanings: they are all associated with the central meaning and are motivated by it, and specific meanings are obtained by the cognitive processes of metonymization and metaphorization of the central meaning, as well as other lexical-semantic variants. Further, these meanings are not only motivated, but they also have a certain structure and, so to speak, a derivation queue; in other words, some values are closer and some are further from the center. This analysis appears to support the embodied cognition hypothesis, that people conceptualize abstract concepts using words associated with body parts or bodily actions. As for the lexeme "eye", and accordingly the concept "eye", we can conclude that eyes are conceptualized as a certain type of conductor from the external to the internal world of a person.
References:
1. Abduvaliev, M. A. Study of the lexical-semantic field "eye" in English, Russian and Uzbek languages / M. A. Abduvaliev, Sh. I. Shokirov. — Text: immediate // Young scientist. - 2017. -No. 5 (139). — P. 410-414.
2. Vorlov T K (2023). Pragmatic characteristics of speech and their lexicographic representation (based on materials from ideographic dictionaries of the Russian language). Issues in Lexicography, (14), 122-140.
3. Karimov N. (2022). Pragmatic aspects of studying political media discourse. News of Saratov University. New episode. Series Philology. Journalism, 12(2), 27-32.
4. Rizomova Z.A., Odinaeva S., & Mukhamadieva H.R. (2023). Implementation of the Concept's "Eye" and "Eyebrow" in the Russian Language (Based on the Example of Works of Folklore). Endless light in science, (June), 841-844.
5. Webster's third international dictionary of the English language. Edition -3 modified with a new introduction and editorial commentary by Matt Furey. Konemann. 2023.
