383 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education Volume 3, Issue 2, 2025 ISSN (E): 2993-2769 The Formation of an Associative Field by Evaluative Units in a Text Erkinova Markhabo Gayrat kizi Lecturer, Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature named after Alisher Navoi erkinovamarhabo8@gmail.com Abstract. This article investigates the formation and characteristics of associative fields created by evaluative units in the Uzbek language, focusing specifically on units that express positive evaluation. It examines the role of language units in conveying the speaker’s (subject’s) attitude towards an object, a central component of communication and meaning-making. The research outlines methods for constructing and analyzing these associative fields. This includes: identifying and extracting associatively linked units from a given text; integrating these units to form the associative field; conducting associative experiments to gauge individuals’ responses to stimuli words related to positive evaluation; and, finally, constructing and analyzing the structure of the resulting associative field based on the experimental data. The study isolates and analyzes the positive evaluative units within a text, then delineates the resulting associative field for each unit. The analysis delves into the lexical, grammatical, and syntactic units that constitute and shape these associative fields, offering insights into the cognitive and linguistic mechanisms underlying positive evaluation in Uzbek. The research contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between language, evaluation, and the construction of meaning. Key words: Association, associative field, evaluation seme, negative evaluation, positive evaluation or neutral evaluation, associative field of the text, stimulus word, verbal association, cognitive linguistics, Uzbek language. Introduction President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s words, “Each of us must regard attention to the state language as attention to independence, respect and devotion to the state language as respect and devotion to the homeland, and make such an approach a rule of our life,1” underscore the vital importance of language in national identity and social cohesion. The study of the formation of evaluative lexical associations in the Uzbek language, the characteristics of these evaluative associative fields, and the role of verbal associations, particularly considering the gender and social characteristics of language users, has become a pressing concern in contemporary linguistic research. The associative field, as it relates to language, functions as a cognitive landscape reflecting the interconnectedness of linguistic units. It is, essentially, “a structurally lexicographic unit, the verbal expression of the images of its companions reflecting certain realities in the human mind, the expression of thoughts, knowledge and perceptions that are the result of associative relationships of semantic and grammatical interrelated units of the language2” 1 “Solemn Speech of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev dedicated to the 30th anniversary of granting state language status to the Uzbek language.” // Halk Suzi (People’s Word). October 22, 2019. 2 Lutfullaeva, D. Associative Linguistics Theory. – Tashkent: Meriyus, 2017. Page 58. 384 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us The associative field of units that express evaluation occurs across different levels of linguistic analysis. Each unit carries an evaluative component, a “seme,” that signals a positive, negative, or neutral attitude towards the referenced concept. The connection, or associative link, stemming from a stimulus word—the trigger for association—is not limited to the evaluative units themselves, but extends to a broader range of units with various semantic characteristics that are linked to them. Analysis of Literature on the Topic Evaluation, expressing the speaker’s (subject’s) attitude towards the object being described, is a universal phenomenon inherent to all linguistic units. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on the expression of evaluation in various language units. Evaluative relationships are studied based on the dialectical state of logic and linguistics. The renowned philosopher V.P. Tugorinov, speaking about the essence of evaluative relationships, considers evaluation to be the most important category for the development, improvement, and even change of society and nature in modern times 3. From a linguistic point of view, the study of evaluative relationships was initiated by logical-linguists and scholars involved in semantics, such as E.M. Wolf, N.D. Arutyunova, S.S. Khidikel, G.G. Kashel, and A.A. Ivin. E.M. Wolf examines evaluation from a functional-semantic point of view, while N.D. Arutyunova addresses the axiological issue on a philosophical basis, and the research is carried out in a logical-semantic direction. In the research of S.S. Khadikel and G.G. Kashel, the semantic characteristics of lexical means expressing evaluation are given, and only lexemes are considered from all sides. N.D. Arutyunova considers it sufficient to distinguish two types of non-subject objects: things (state, property, phenomenon) and facts (mainly propositions). The first expresses a person’s attitude to objective reality, while the second expresses the assimilation of reality into the human consciousness. Continuing her thought, she says that the following parameters can be included in the first group: movement and immobility, gradation of movement or state, resultative and non-resultative, and so on. For the second case, classification based on signs is characteristic, taking into account characteristics such as truth and hypothetical (presumed) truth and falsehood, affirmation and denial 4. The meaning of evaluation emerges based on the relationship between the object and the subject, that is, if the speaker (subject) is influenced by the object or desires to express their attitude towards it, they express their opinion. As a result, the meaning of evaluation emerges. The sign of evaluation depends on the object, and on this basis, one of the positive, neutral, or negative attitudes becomes clear. The further the positive or negative evaluation moves away from the neutral meaning lexeme, the stronger the meanings of positivity and negativity become. In this form, the gradation 5 feature is clearly visible in the process of giving a positive or negative evaluation to an object. The linguistic aspect of evaluative relationships finds its expression in the semantic structure. Evaluation, which is the direction of the content plane, can manifest itself at different levels of language. R. Kungurov expresses his views on this, saying: “Positive or negative attitudes are expressed by various or negative attitudes by various forms (morphological), individual words (lexical), constructions (syntactic), combinations of form and word (lexical-morphological), intonation (phonetic)” 6. Since they are expressed through units smaller than words, as well as through words, units larger than words, and even through supersegmental means, this process can also be carried out through non- verbal means7. The speaker also uses additional gestures and facial expressions to express his or her 3 Tugorinov, V.P. On the Values of Life and Culture. Moscow, 1960. 4 Arutyunova, N.D. “On the Object of General Evaluation.” Voprosy Yazykoznaniya (Questions of Linguistics). 1985, No. 3. 5 Bozorov, O. Gradation in the Uzbek Language: Doctor of Philology dissertation abstract. - T. (Tashkent), 1997. 6 Qo’ng’urov, R. Semantic and Stylistic Characteristics of Subjective Evaluation Forms. - T. (Tashkent): Fan, 1980. p. 7 Qo’ng’urov, R. Cited Literature. p. 54 385 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us positive or negative attitude. In this part of our work, we will focus on the associative field of positive evaluative relationships. Research Methodology The associative field of positive evaluative units can be formed using the following methods: 1. By extracting associatively linked units from a text and combining them into an associative field. 2. By conducting associative experiments on test subjects regarding units with a positive evaluative attitude and forming an associative field based on their materials. In the first method, to create an associative field, a text is selected, mutually associatively linked units are extracted from it, and combined into a common associative field. Such an associative field is considered “the associative field of the text,” and it serves to provide information about the extent to which the author knows the lexical-semantic essence of the stimulus word, how they perceive the object, reality, their imagination, psychological state, knowledge about it, and so on. Such an associative field is not limited to knowledge related to the author of the text but also creates the possibility of obtaining information about the language of the era in which he lived, its lexical composition, and grammatical structure. In this regard, this type of associative field, created through text analysis, has two-way practical significance. To determine the associative field of positive evaluative units, we use the lyrical genre in our work. As a stimulus word, we choose the word “do’st” (friend), a unit with a positive evaluative seme, and consider the associative field of this word in the text. In the following poetic text, we identify mutually associatively linked units: Do‘st bilan obod uying Do‘st bilan obod uying Gar bo‘lsa u vayrona ham Do‘st qadam qo‘ymas esa, Vayronadir koshona ham. Intizor har uy dilovar Dilkusholar bazmiga, Gar oyoq qo‘ysa qabohat Yig‘lagay ostona ham. Yaxshi do‘stlar davrasida Ochilursan har zamon, Ko‘rkni shoda ichra topgay Marvarid durdona ham. So‘rma mendan, kim diloro, Do‘stmi yo jonona deb, Do‘st mening ko‘nglimdadir, Jonimdadir jonona ham. Qochma rostgo‘y do‘stlarning 386 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us Koyish-u ozoridan, Qaddi rost shamning tilidan O‘rtanur parvona ham. Do‘st qidir, do‘st top jahonda, Do‘st yuz ming bo‘lsa oz, Ko‘p erur bisyor dushman Bo‘lsa u bir dona ham. Kim senga hamroz emasdur Beg‘araz deb o‘ylama, Gohi dushmanlik qilurlar Qo‘l siqib do‘stona ham. Do‘sti sodiq yo‘q ekan deb O‘rtanib kuyma va lek, Mehr uyin keng ochsang, Erkin, Do‘st bo‘lur begona ham. (E.Vohidov) Analysis and Results Erkin Vohidov’s poem “A Home is Blessed with a Friend” reflects a positive evaluative attitude towards the concept of friendship, and units expressing this positive evaluation are actively employed in the semantic field of the word “do’st” (friend). The word “do’st,” a noun denoting a person, functions as a stimulus word, a unit with a positive evaluative attitude, within the poem. This means that all the units serving to depict events and happenings in the text are logically connected to the word “do’st.” Based on associative analysis, the following units are associated with the word “do’st” in the text: ➢ Do’st: do’st (friend) (4), obod uying (blessed home), vayrona (ruin), vayronadir (is ruined), koshona (palace), dilovor (heart-throb), dilkusholar bazmiga (to a delightful gathering), qabohat (wickedness), yaxshi do‘stlar davrasi (the circle of good friends), ochilursan (you open up), ko‘rk (beauty), marvarid durdona (pearl durdona), kim diloro (who is heart-lifting), do‘stmi (friend?), jonona (sweetheart), mening ko‘nglimdadir (in my heart), jonimdadir (is in my soul), rostgo‘y do‘stlarning koyish-u ozoridan (from the reproaches and torment of truthful friends), “Qaddi rost shamning tilidan o‘rtanur parvona ham” (like a moth to a flame’s heart), “Do‘st qidir, do‘st top jahonda” (Seek a friend, find a friend in the world), yuz ming (hundred thousand), oz (few), ko‘p (many), bisyor (numerous), dushman (enemy), bir dona (one), kim (who), hamroz emasdur (is not a confidant), beg‘araz (selfless), dushmanlik qilurlar (they do enmity), qo‘l siqib (shaking hands), do‘stona (friendly), do‘sti sodiq (true friend), “Mehr uyin keng ochsang” (Open the house of love wide), do‘st bo‘lur (will become a friend), begona (stranger). The aforementioned units, identified through associative analysis of the poetic text, form the associative field and are the building blocks of the text. These units, centered around the stimulus word “do’st”, serve to organize the text logically and semantically. The following units, where the positive evaluation of the word “do’st” shines through, are present in the poem: do’st (used in various grammatical forms 10 times: do‘st(4), do‘stlar (friends) in the unmarked genitive form (1), do‘stmi (friend?) (1), do‘stlarning (of friends) (1), do‘st (friend) in the 387 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us unmarked accusative case (2), do‘sti (friend’s) (1)); obod (blessed), koshona (palace), dilovor (heart- throb), dilkusholar (delightful), yaxshi (good), ochilursan (you open up), ko‘rkni (beauty), shoda ichra (in the cluster), marvarid (pearl), durdona (durdona), diloro (heart-lifting), jonona (sweetheart) (2), rostgo‘y (truthful), rost (straight), yuz ming (hundred thousand), ko‘p (many), bisyor (numerous), hamroz (confidant), beg‘araz (selfless), do‘stona (friendly), do‘sti sodiq (true friend), mehr (love). The following sentences, featuring the word “do’st”, appear in the text: “do‘st bilan obod uying” (A home is blessed with a friend), “Do‘st qadam qo‘ymas esa” (But if a friend does not set foot), “Yaxshi do‘stlar davrasida ochilursan har zamon” (In the circle of good friends you’ll find, Each moment, blossom of mind), “So‘rma mendan, kim diloro, Do‘stmi yo jonona deb” (Ask not if sweetheart or friend holds sway), “Do‘st mening ko‘nglimdadir” (A friend is in my heart), “Qochma rostgo‘y do‘stlarning Koyish-u ozoridan” (Flee not the hurt, the honest friend’s art), “Do‘st qidir, do‘st top jahonda” (Seek friends, in this wide world explore), “Do‘st yuz ming bo‘lsa oz” (Though thousands come, still, more and more), “Do‘sti sodiq yo‘q ekan” (That faithful friendship you discern), “Do‘st bo‘lur begona ham” (Even a stranger will become a friend). Along with the units with a positive evaluative attitude, there are also units with a negative evaluative attitude in this text. They create an association based on the semantics of the lexemes of the stimulus word. The units with a negative evaluative attitude serve to colorfully express the positive evaluation seme of the stimulus word. They are: vayrona (ruin), vayronadir (is ruined), qabohat (wickedness), yig‘lagay (will weep), koyish-u ozoridan (from the reproaches and torment), o‘rtanur (burns), dushman (enemy), dushmanlik (enmity), o‘rtanib kuyma (do not burn and grieve), begona (stranger). All the noted positive evaluative units can be combined into the following associative field: do‘st (friend) (4), jonona (sweetheart) (2), obod uying (blessed home), koshona (palace), dilovor (heart- throb), dilkusholar bazmiga (to a delightful gathering), yaxshi do‘stlar davrasi (the circle of good friends), ochilursan (you open up), shoda (cluster), ko‘rk (beauty), marvarid (pearl), durdona (durdona), diloro (heart-lifting), do‘stmi (friend?), rostgo‘y do‘stlarning (of truthful friends), qaddi rost sham (straight candle), “Do‘st qidir, do‘st top jahonda” (Seek a friend, find a friend in the world), “Do‘st yuz ming bo‘lsa oz” (Though thousands come, still, more and more)1, bisyor (numerous), beg‘araz (selfless), do‘stona (friendly), do‘sti sodiq (true friend), mehr uyin keng ochsang (Open the house of love wide), do‘st bo‘lur (will become a friend). This associative field contains the following structures of positive evaluative units: units in the form of a word - 17, word combinations - 5, units in the form of a sentence - 6. The nucleus of the associative field includes the units do‘st (friend), yaxshi do‘stlar davrasi (the circle of good friends), and dushman (enemy); in the area closer to the center, the units dilkusholar bazmi (delightful gathering), rostgo‘y do‘stlar koyish-u ozoridan (from the reproaches and torment of truthful friends), Do‘st qidir, do‘st top jahonda (Seek a friend, find a friend in the world), Do‘st yuz ming bo‘lsa oz (Though thousands come, still, more and more), do‘stona (friendly), do‘sti sodiq (true friend), do‘st bo‘lur (will become a friend) are located; and in the far perimeter of the field, the units obod uying (blessed home), vayrona (ruin), vayronadir koshona ham (a home is ruined), dilovor (heart-throb), qabohat (wickedness), yig‘lagay (will weep), ochilursan (you open up), Ko‘rkni shoda ichra topgay marvarid durdona ham (Beauty will be found in the cluster, A pearl, the finest of all hours), diloro (heart-lifting), janona (sweetheart), Qaddi rost shamning tilidan o‘rtanur parvona ham (like a moth to a flame’s heart), ko‘p (many), bisyor (numerous), bir dona (one), hamroz emas (is not a confidant), beg‘araz (selfless), dushmanlik (enmity), Mehr uyin keng ochsang (Open the house of love wide), begona (stranger) are located. Discussion It can be seen that the associative field of a text can be formed based on an associative analysis of the text. The associative field formed on the basis of the text is called “the associative field of the text.” The associative field of the text has a certain commonality with the associative field formed through words. 388 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us In a literary text, the linguistic units, associatively linked to each other, form an associative field. Such units are united around the main idea that the creator wants to express. The associative field in a literary text consists mostly of units that reflect the author’s subjective attitude towards reality8. It is worth noting that, regardless of the units on which the associative experiment is conducted, its materials serve to form the associative field. But the associative field formed through text analysis takes on an individual character. Because the text belongs to a single author, and the specific speech units (dialectal units, occasional uses, unique comparative combinations, etc.) found in its composition indicate the individuality of the associative field. Through such an associative field, it is possible to obtain information about a certain person’s way of thinking, their attitude towards events, their vocabulary, and their knowledge of language. Conclusion The relationship of mutually associatively linked units is evident in every text. Such units serve to meaningfully shape the text. They ensure the integrity of the text, as D. Lutfullayeva emphasizes, “Another feature characteristic of verbal associations is that they pave the way for the creation of various speech structures. In other words, for any speech structure, mutually associatively linked linguistic units (lexical, syntactic units) serve as supporting units.9” The associative field is formed either by conducting an associative experiment among a single person or among many language users and combining the obtained results. If an associative experiment is conducted on a single person, an individual associative field is formed. If the experiment is conducted among many language users, the associative field takes on a collective character. Such an associative field reflects the knowledge, views, and attitudes of language users regarding units with a positive evaluative attitude. REFERENCES: 1. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev. “Solemn Speech Dedicated to the 30th Anniversary of Granting State Language Status to the Uzbek Language.” // Halk Suzi (People’s Word). October 22, 2019. 2. Bozorov, O. Gradation in the Uzbek Language: Doctor of Philology dissertation abstract. – T. (Tashkent), 1997. 3. Erkinova M. Evaluative units in Uzbek women’s speech. - Tashkent: Til va adabiyot.uz, 2024 - Issue 6 4. Lutfullaeva, D. Associative Linguistics Theory. – Tashkent: Meriyus, 2017. 5. Nurmonov, A. Selected Works. Volume 1, – T. (Tashkent), 2012. 6. Qo’ng’urov, R. Semantic and Stylistic Characteristics of Subjective Evaluation Forms. – T. (Tashkent): Fan, 1980. p. 42. 7. Vohidov, E. Human. – T. (Tashkent): Uzbekistan, 2015. 8. Rahmatullaev, Sh. Modern Literary Uzbek Language, – T. (Tashkent), 2010. 9. Khoshimova, N.A. Associative Relationships in the Uzbek Language: Doctor of Philosophy in Philology dissertation abstract. – Fergana, 2018. 10. Tojiboyev B. “Associative research of national-cultural units”. PhD degree. olish…diss. Tashkent. 2020. (Research the associative of national-cultural units) 11. Grammar of the Uzbek Language. Volume I. T. (Tashkent) 1975 Internet Resources: 12. www.google.uz 8 Lutfullayeva, D. Cited Literature. p. 74. 9 Lutfullayeva, D. Cited Literature. p. 26. http://www.google.uz/ 389 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us 13. www.ref.uz 14. Google.uz…http://www 15. Ziyonet.uz http://www.ref.uz/ http://www/