COLLOQUIAL UNIVERBATION IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES

Аннотация

This article presents a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek colloquialisms, focusing on their semantic categories and structural patterns. It identifies recurring thematic clusters and investigates how colloquialisms in both languages reflect cultural values and societal norms. The study also explores the relationship between English colloquial univerbs and their corresponding expressions in Uzbek, highlighting instances where a single English word corresponds to a multi-word phrase, idiomatic expression, or descriptive paraphrase in Uzbek. This comparative approach offers insights into the unique characteristicsof colloquial language ineach linguistic and cultural context. Keywords:colloquialisms, verbs, adjectives, semantic analysis, english, uzbek, comparative linguistics, lexical semantics, translation equivalents, univerbs, idioms, phrases. The study of colloquialisms provides valuable insights into the dynamic nature of language and the socio-cultural factors that shape its evolution. Colloquial language, characterized by its informality and everyday usage, often differs significantly from the standard or literary forms of a language. This article aims to explore the formation processes of colloquialisms in two distinct linguistic contexts: English and Uzbek. By comparing and contrasting the mechanisms through which words acquire colloquial meanings in these languages, we can gain a deeper understanding of the universal principles governing lexical semantic change andthespecific cultural influences that contribute tothe uniquecharacterof each language. The research also analyzes colloquial verbs and adjectives in English and Uzbek, classifying them into semantic classes and groups. It can be observed that colloquialisms in English and Uzbek are mainly associated with everyday life themes. However, it is not correct to accept this as an unchanging general rule. Because, colloquial lexical units can also be used in the process of relationships outside the scope of everyday themes. In the semantic research process, it is necessary to take into account various factors that reflect the volume and specificity of the language vocabulary. As a result, there is a need to identify such areas or branches of extra-linguistic reality that have universal significance and value. It should be noted that this need is further increased, especially when studying colloquial lexical units that reflect human life and everyday life. Analyzing different word groups, we have witnessed that certain differences may emerge in the composition of these groups in the compared languages. Different areas and semantic classes can be distinguished that unite colloquial lexical units. For example, J.Green emphasizes that sub-colloquialisms are more often used by peopleinthefollowing topics: 1)bodyand its parts; 2)money; 3)food; 4)animals; page1039 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN:2692-5206,ImpactFactor:12,23 AmericanAcademicpublishers,volume05,issue05,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai 5)buildings andtheir parts; 6)day and night; 7)peoplehierarchy [1]. The semantic space of each area is divided into sema-classes, the total number of which reaches thirty-two. R.Gonzales and A.Stentsrom, in turn, single out the following mostactive topics: 1)school; 2)drugs, drinking and smoking; 3)music; 4)entertainment; 5)type ofintimateactivity; 6)fashion; 7)leisureactivities [2]. When studying sub-colloquial lexical units, B.Sotvoldiev singles out 13 of their lexical-semanticgroups: 1)anthroponyms; 2)eponyms; 3)characternyms; 4)toponyms; 5)zoonyms; 6)phytonyms; 7)somatisms; 8)ethnonyms; 9)product names; 10)profession names; 11)numbers; 12)colors; 13)onomatopoeia[3]. G.Rahimov proposes to divide literary language and sub-colloquial lexical units into meanings of words are often derived, and metaphors are crucial in the formation of these new senses. This process involves applying qualities or characteristics associated with one concept orentitytoanother, resulting in anovel and often figurative meaning [4]. The influence of cultural context on metaphorical transfer should also be considered. For example, a cultural understanding of animal behavior or common usage of an object might contribute to its metaphorical use in colloquial language. The following lexical- semanticvariants serve as examplesof thisphenomenon: 1.Animal–(similar toit)aperson orobject: ENGLISH: 1.chick (literary) –ayoung domesticfowl; 2.chick (colloquial) –ayoung woman; UZBEK: 1. eshak (literary) – a mammal with long ears related to the equids, smaller working animal thanahorse; 2.eshak (colloquial) –someonewho does someoneelse’s work selflessly; 2.Object –Person: ENGLISH: 1.crook (literary) –abend, curve, hook; 2.crook (colloquial) –aswindler; UZBEK: 1.Cho‘p(literary) –apiece of twig, branch,thin, long splinter, pieceof wood. page1040 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN:2692-5206,ImpactFactor:12,23 Am