The Semantic Field of Equestrian Lexical Units in English And Uzbek Languages Abdinazarov Uktam Qushoqovich

Аннотация

This study investigates the semantic structure and cultural underpinnings of equestrian lexical units in English and Uzbek. Drawing on corpus data (150 million English words; 40 million Uzbek words), specialised glossaries and ethnographic commentary, it identifies central and peripheral members of the semantic field that centres on the lexeme horse (ot). Componential, contextual-collocational and cognitive-onimic analyses reveal both universal and culture-specific patterns of lexical differentiation. English demonstrates fine-grained terminological density in breeding, conformation and competition, whereas Uzbek shows greater lexical granularity in ethno-equine practices such as kopkari, ceremonial processions and steppe horse husbandry. Despite typological distance, both languages share a tripartite core of basic zoological, functional and metaphorical meanings anchored in Indo-European and Altaic conceptual schemata of mobility, status and vitality. The results have implications for bilingual lexicography, translation studies and intercultural communication in veterinary and sport-management domains. Keywords: Equestrian lexicon; semantic field; English; Uzbek; comparative linguistics; corpus analysis. vocabulary conveys nuanced meanings. By mapping Introduction: Semantic-field theory assumes that semantic fields rather than isolated lexemes, the lexical items are organised into structured domains present research seeks to reveal the internal logic of whose boundaries are determined by cultural cognition each language’s equestrian vocabulary and the cross- and communicative need [10]. The horse, linguistic correspondences that facilitate equivalence. domesticated approximately 5 500 years ago on the Eurasian steppe, occupies a privileged place in the The study addresses three research questions. (1) What mental lexicon of many societies, including the are the semantic micro-zones constituting the Anglophone equestrian tradition and the equine- equestrian field in English and Uzbek? (2) How do centred nomadic heritage of Uzbeks [12]. While frequency patterns in contemporary corpora reflect previous scholarship has explored the ethnographic cultural priorities in each language? (3) Which areas symbolism of horses in Turkic folklore [3] and the display high lexical congruence and which expose terminological proliferation in English sport registers lacunae demanding creative translation strategies? [6], a systematic bidirectional comparison of English Answers to these questions contribute to descriptive and Uzbek equestrian vocabulary remains absent. linguistics, applied lexicography and translation pedagogy. The urgency of such a comparison is twofold. First, English functions as the lingua franca of modern The investigation combined quantitative corpus equestrian science and industry; thus, accurate Uzbek methods with qualitative semantic analysis. English equivalents are vital for professional translation and data were extracted from the 2024 release of the knowledge transfer. Second, lexical asymmetries British National Corpus (BNC) supplemented by an impede the mutual intelligibility of cultural texts—from equestrian‐specialised sub-corpus compiled from The literary works to regulatory documents—where equine Horse & Hound, Equus and Fédération Équestre American Journal Of Philological Sciences 364 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN – 2771-2273) Internationale (FEI) rulebooks, totalling roughly 150 Asian buzkashi-style game), qamchi (whip used in million tokens. Uzbek data derived from the Uzbek ceremonial rides) and tulyak (year-old foal offered in National Corpus (UNC) and newly digitised newspapers bridewealth), carry cultural connotations absent in devoted to agriculture and sport, amounting to 40 English. Conversely, English includes lexemes like cob million tokens. Corpus queries employed SketchEngine and hunter that encode British rural class distinctions. lemmas for horse and ot plus 120 manually curated MI analysis reveals that English horse collocates with hyponyms. Mutual information (MI) scores above 3.0 verbs of maintenance and competition (train, ride, signalled statistically significant collocations. groom, compete), whereas Uzbek ot pairs with verbs of Componential analysis followed the traditional kinship and daily life (sozlamoq ‘to arrange’, sotib semantic-feature approach: [+species], [+sex], [+age], olmoq ‘to purchase’, yaylovga chiqarish ‘to drive to [+use], [+colour], [+cultural function]. Each candidate pasture’). Adjectival modifiers in English revolve unit was assigned feature bundles, enabling around physiology (sound, lame, thoroughbred), while comparative matrices. Contextual-collocational Uzbek favours evaluative semantics (chaqqon ‘swift’, analysis, informed by Firthian distributionalism, bo‘rtiq ‘spirited’). examined the top 50 MI-ranked collocates, Frame modelling shows that English emphasises the emphasising verb-nou