ENANTIOSEMIK LINGVISTIK BIRLIKLARNING O‘RGANILISH TARIXI

Authors

  • Sarvar Hafizov Boborajab o‘g‘li Denov tadbirkorlik va pedagogika instituti, Denov, O‘zbekiston Elektron pochta: shafizov@dtpi.uz https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1299-205X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v4i5/2.6168

Keywords:

enantiosemiya, ichki antonimiya, polisemiya, semantika, pragmatika, kognitiv lingvistika, konseptual zidlik, diskurs, leksikografiya, antropotsentrizm, kognitiv freym

Abstract

Ushbu keng qamrovli ilmiy maqolada tilshunoslikning eng paradoksal va murakkab hodisalaridan biri bo‘lgan enantiosemiya fenomeni – bir lingvistik birlik semantik strukturasi doirasida o‘zaro zid ma’nolarning sinxron yoki diaxron tarzda mavjudligi masalasi fundamental tadqiq etiladi. Maqolada enantiosemiyaning shakllanish va o‘rganilish tarixi XIX asrdan bugungi kunga qadar bo‘lgan davr kesimida, xususan, G‘arb (Ingliz, Fransuz, Nemis), rus va o‘zbek tilshunoslik maktablari doirasida qiyosiy-tarixiy tahlil qilinadi. Shuningdek, maqolada enantiosemiyaning zamonaviy lingvistik tipologiya, korpus lingvistikasi va sun’iy intellekt tizimlaridagi o‘rni muhokama qilinadi.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Abel, K. (1884). Über den Gegensinn der Urworte. Leipzig: Wilhelm Friedrich.

2. Apresyan, Yu. D. (1974). Leksicheskaya semantika. Sinonimicheskie sredstva yazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

3. Benveniste, É. (1971). Problems in General Linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press.

4. Breal, M. (1897). Essai de sémantique (science des significations). Paris: Hachette.

5. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.

7. Hojiyev, A. (2002). Tilshunoslik terminlarining izohli lug‘ati. Toshkent: O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi.

8. Jamolxonov, H. (2005). Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tili. Toshkent: Talqin.

9. Khursanov N.I. Ecolinguistics in the Anthropocentric Paradigm: Research Object and Purpose. InConferences 2025 Dec 12 (Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 780-783).

10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

11. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Mahmudov, N. (2012). Tilning mukammal tadqiqi yo‘llarini izlab... O‘zbek tili va adabiyoti, (3), 3-16.

13. Nurmonov, A. (2012). Tanlangan asarlar. 1-jild. Toshkent: Akademnashr.

14. Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15. Safarov, Sh. (2006). Kognitiv tilshunoslik. Jizzax: Sangzor.

16. Shanskiy, N. M. (1972). Leksikologiya sovremennogo russkogo yazyka. Moscow: Prosveshenie.

17. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.

18. Ullmann, S. (1957). The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Co.

19. Vinogradov, V. V. (1977). Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologiya i leksikografiya. Moscow: Nauka.

20. Xursanov N.I. (2025) Dramatik diskurs: kognitiv, pragmatik, lingvokulturologik tavsif. Monografiya. – T.: “EXISTENTIUM-PRINT” nashriyoti. 250 b.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-14

How to Cite

ENANTIOSEMIK LINGVISTIK BIRLIKLARNING O‘RGANILISH TARIXI. (2026). SCIENCE TIME JOURNAL, 4(5/2), 265-270. https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v4i5/2.6168
Indexed & Abstracted In

Our articles are indexed and discoverable across leading academic databases worldwide