Lexico-semantic features of ecological terms connected with water
Innovation in Ecology
DOI: 10.21070/ijins.v8i0.276

Lexico-semantic features of ecological terms connected with water


Doctor of philosophy in philology (PhD) Uzbekistan, Andijan State University
Uzbekistan

(*) Corresponding Author

irrigation water resources drinkable water hard water salt water running water table water still water water pollution dam ecological terms

Abstract

The article deals with the lexical units and their lexical-semantic features associated with the concept "water". On this case, research has been mentioned on different points of the lexico-semantic features of ecological terms connected with water. It concludes with the outcomes and shortcomings as the whole.

Introduction

As in all languages, the Uzbek language also has thousands of words related to water and they make up one of the rich layers of our language. Despite a serious study of lexical units related to water to our time in science with historical, hydrological, irrigation, geographical aspects, it paid little attention to linguistic features.

The substantial branching of the word water has not reached the end. For example, its special meanings were ignored. The following examples can be cited for this. “The role of drinking water in human life is incomparable” (life-giving); “Will you drink Tashkent water or juice?” (Mineral water).

Most importantly, the Uzbek language has not studied the features of the water token associated with ecology. But in the real situation in the microsystem related to water, two parallel ecological directions dominated: purity, transparency, naturalness and pollution, and so on.

In our clarification, lexical units associated with water, in the first place, are summed up in one place with the value “suitable for drinking”. This includes lexical units like pure drinking water, spring water, sparkling water, healing water, mineral water, salt water. In all these words there is a seme “ecological clean fresh water” and by this meaning they have a peculiar position in the microsystem related to ecology. In turn, they are divided into sub-groups: a) lexical units meaning this “natural pure, suitable for drinking”: fresh, clean, sweet; b) lexical units meaning seme as “dirty, muddy, salty”.

Main part

This means that the names of the waters are “unsuitable for drinking,” like bitter water, muddy water, dirty water, which contradict the first-line tokens with seme “unsuitable drink for drinking”.

c) in such tokens as warm, cold, tasteless and in such tokens there are semes not touching the above mentioned and on two rows. These semes are savvy on the physical and chemical properties of objects.

Soda is a “drink” in liquids like juice, ayran, koumiss, but they differ in color, taste, that it is a secondary product, and with the presence of semea, the effect on the biological position of a person is very different with lexeme water.

Such lexical units as rain, snow, hail, hoarfrost, dew, fall, melt, pour, ice, make up the third paradigmatic line of water-related tokens. They come to the fore sema "has physical and chemical properties." In fact, water is found in nature as solid - ice, liquid - water and gas - steam.

The fourth paradigmatic line is summarized depending on national realities and sociolinguistic relations. A number of lexemes can be brought to them as healing water, sacred water, a mermaid, a water girl (realities are maҳram suv, irim suv).

The next group is implemented depending on agriculture, land irrigation. You can enter lexical units like mineralization, sewage, dam, dam, spring water, summer water.

The main part of the terminological system related to water is constituted by terms that are formed from two or more lexical units: global water partnership, water resources, microflora, etc.

On the basis of the natural movement of water, two groups of lexical units can be distinguished: a) tokens having semes as “moving water forward”, “running water”: stream, stream, mountain river. spring // source; b) tokens having semes as “standing, not flowing water”: a puddle, a pond, a lake, a reservoir, sea, ocean, etc.

Conclusion

So, one should not forget that the study in a linguistic aspect of the environmental features of the terms associated with water and in this basis to draw conclusions is an important problem that is ahead of Uzbek linguistics.

References

  1. Abdulhamidov A. From the history of folk irrigation practice in the foothills of Uzbekistan of the 19th century beginning of the 20th century - Tashkent: Nauka, 1981;
  2. Dumanyan I.M. Present and Future of Irrigated Agriculture - Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 1965;
  3. Isomiddinov Z. Water is a Bliss // Enlightenment Wreath, 2011 Issue 39, page 6.
  4. Muhammadjonov A. Irrigation of the Lower Zarafshan Valley.-Tashkent: 1982; Fayzullaev J, Shokirov A. Irrigation - Tashkent: Science, 1990 and more.
  5. Shokirov A. Irrigation - Tashkent: Science, 1990 and more.