SEMANTIC AND COLLOCATIONAL ASYMMETRIES IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK SYNONYMIC UNITS

Authors
  • Usmonov Asliddin Mannonovich

    Independent Researcher, Karshi State University

    Author

Keywords:
synonymy, semantic asymmetry, collocational analysis, comparative lexicology, English linguistics, Uzbek linguistics, lexical semantics, translation equivalence, corpus linguistics, pragmatic meaning
Abstract

This study investigates semantic and collocational asymmetries in English and Uzbek synonymic units from a comparative and contrastive linguistic perspective. The research focuses on how synonymic relations in the two languages differ in terms of semantic structure, contextual usage, collocational compatibility, stylistic differentiation, and pragmatic force. The study employs comparative, semantic, componential, contextual, and corpus-based analytical methods in order to identify similarities and divergences between English and Uzbek synonymic series. The findings demonstrate that synonymic equivalence between the two languages is predominantly partial rather than complete. Many lexical items share a common denotative core while differing significantly in connotation, register, collocational behavior, and communicative function.

References

1.Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

2.Jackson, H., & Amvela, E. Z. (2007). Words, meaning and vocabulary: An introduction to modern English lexicology (2nd ed.). Continuum.

3.Murphy, M. L. (2010). Lexical meaning. Cambridge University Press.

4.Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.

5.Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell.

Downloads
Published
2026-05-26
Section
Articles
License
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

SEMANTIC AND COLLOCATIONAL ASYMMETRIES IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK SYNONYMIC UNITS. (2026). Eureka Journal of Humanities and Social Research, 2(5), 240-247. https://eurekaoa.com/index.php/4/article/view/1103